Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DISABLED PERSONS (MOTOR CARS)

10.5 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the provision of vehicles for the disabled, and I should like to apologise for its length.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have been reviewing the provision of invalid vehicles for the disabled and the associated benefits. We have taken into account all the representations that have been made during the last two years for the provision of types of vehicles different from those at present supplied, for the extension of classes of eligibility and for the provision of additional benefits.
Under present arrangements a single-seater invalid tricycle may be provided for disabled persons who qualify under one of the three categories of eligibility used for this purpose. The alternative choice of a small four-seater car has been available for some years to war pensioners and, since July, 1964, without specific authority under the National Health Service Acts, to two members of the same family who are both entitled to an invalid tricycle, and to a husband and wife one of whom is eligible for a vehicle and the other is blind.
Many hon. Members have urged upon me on many occasions that the choice of a small car instead of a tricycle should be more generally available. We have examined the possibility of extending the present provision and we have considered the claims to priority of various classes of the disabled. I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have decided to make cars available to three further groups.
A member of the first group would be a disabled parent who had lost his or her spouse and had been left alone to care for the child or children of the marriage. If such a parent is entitled to a tricycle, he or she will be offered the alternative of a car for as long as he or she is responsible for a child. Members of the second group would be two relatives in the same household not necessarily man and wife, of whom one is eligible for a vehicle and the other blind. Members of the third group would be two relatives in the same household both eligible for an invalid vehicle, one of whom is under 16 years of age and therefore unable to hold a driving licence.
People in these three groups will qualify for a car as long as they meet the conditions and provided they are able to drive themselves. We estimate that there are about 1,600 households that will benefit from these additional provisions and we will deal with their applications as promptly as we can. The initial capital cost will be about £600,000 and the annual maintenance cost about £150,000.
This is as far as we can go without specific statutory authority. My right hon. Friend and I intend, however, to find a place in the timetable for amending legislation that would enable us to do more for the disabled driver as resources permit. Very large sums would be involved if it were decided to provide a car for all those now eligible for a tricycle. This is not so much because a car is rather more expensive than a tricycle, which is not a cheap machine, but because of the numbers required; there are many thousands of people who would qualify under our present rules of eligibility who have not applied for a tricycle but who would certainly be expected to ask for a car.
Progress in the direction I have indicated will have to be made by stages, as, indeed, has been the case in the past. The rate at which we shall be able to move forward must be determined by the economic circumstances of the time, the amount of money that can be made available for the National Health Service and the competing claims of many other desirable improvements in the Service. At each stage, we will have to consider the need and convenience of the


disabled in relation to those other competing claims which may be no less urgent. Subject to this and armed with new powers, it would be our intention to take a substantial step forward as soon as practicable following legislation.
We propose to introduce some other immediate improvements. The small saloon cars now supplied are not entirely convenient for a minority of the disabled and we have decided that in exceptional circumstances where a real medical need exists we will supply the estate car model instead.
We are also proposing to introduce a scheme whereby those who become entitled to the supply of a car may receive a course of driving tuition from a recognised school of motoring at Exchequer expense. It has long been the practice to provide driving instruction for those who receive invalid tricycles, and I am sure it is right that those who receive a car should be given similar facilities.
One of the conditions of supplying a car is that proper garage accommodation should be available. This requirement entails difficulty for some and in future they will be entitled to apply for half of their first year's maintenance allowance in advance to help them to provide a suitable garage.
I am sure the House will welcome these immediate improvements. I am sure, too, that we are right to announce our intention to legislate for further advances to be made. At the same time, I must emphasise the necessity of phasing further progress so as to reconcile the claims of the severely disabled with the urgent need for improvements in other sectors of the National Health Service.

Mr. Dean: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, although it has been a long time in coming. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will he disappointment that the step forward which he has announced is so extremely limited and involves only about 1,600 households? We shall, of course, wish to study the statement with care—it is a complicated one—but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions.
First, are all those war pensioners who are now qualified for cars in receipt

of them? Secondly, when does he expect the cars for these three additional categories of people to be made available to them? Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman says that he intends to introduce legislation which will do more. Can he say whether this will deal with matters other than the provision of cars? For example, will it deal with the different rates of help which are available, depending, for example, on whether a person buys a car with automatic transmission for which not much help is available at the moment? Finally, can he say whether in the meantime he is taking some steps to try to help with the problem of repair difficulties, particularly at weekends, when many people find themselves in an embarrassing situation because they cannot get repairs to their tricycles carried out speedily?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the general reception he has given to my statement. He said that there would be disappointment that we had not been able to go further immediately. I would remind him that a similar review was carried out by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), the results of which were announced just before the General Election preceding the change of Government. These changes produced cars for only 300 additional persons. The steps which I have proposed will bring in 1,600 persons, more than five times as many.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether all war pensioners entitled to cars were in receipt of them. I understand that they are.
The hon. Gentleman also asked when these additional categories would get the cars. I think I made it clear in my statement that it would be as soon as we can manage it, as promptly as possible.
On the question of legislation, it will be our intention to include this legislation in other legislation relating to the National Health Service, so it will not deal specifically with this matter, but it will give us statutory authority to do things which hitherto we have been able to do only extra statutorily.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about repair difficulties. I should be glad to look into any particular case, but we are seeking all the time to improve repair facilities.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be given a wholehearted welcome on this side of the House? The help which he is giving to these 1,600 families will be greatly appreciated, and we realise that there are statutory limitations to the help which he has been able to give. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will endeavour to introduce this legislation during this Session?

Mr. Robinson: The timing of the legislation is not a matter for me. I do not think that it will be possible to do it in this Session, but we shall have to see, in consultation with my right hon. Friends, when it can be introduced. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reception of my statement.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Many of us have been trying to get not only this Government but the previous one to do something in this direction. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he has not covered the most important sector, namely, those ordinary people who are disabled and who, because they cannot take a person with them, are completely immobilised unless they can get somebody to help them at both ends of the operation?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the design of the present tricycles to see whether they can be made into two-seater tricycles? The tricycles are uncomfortable, draughty and extremely badly designed. Will he look into this question again, and what consideration did he give to the alternative provision of cars, which is to provide disabled persons with an allowance equivalent to the difference in cost between running a tricycle and running a car? This presumably would not have involved legislation, or would it?

Mr. Robinson: On the last point, this is a matter which we considered, but we did not feel able to go any further at the moment. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman pressed his own Government, as he has this Government, to extend the provision of cars and facilities for the disabled. I think that the kind of extension to which he referred at the beginning of his question is of a major nature and something which can only follow legislation.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism about the design of invalid tricycles. This is a reliable machine, and it has been specially designed for the disabled driver. It can be extensively modified to cover particular conditions of disablement, and indeed frequently is, but certainly there is room for further improvement, and we are continually improving it.

Mr. Bob Brown: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed throughout the country, though with some regret that it does not go quite as far as many of us would have hoped.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

Mr. Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that many of these unfortunate people are living on borrowed time? Time is not on their side. When he is considering further legislation, will he not await general legislation in connection with the Health Service, but deal with this serious problem as early as possible by means of simple amending legislation?

Mr. Robinson: I am not sure that the legislation will necessarily be as simple as that, but it will not be held up on the ground that it might be included with other matters.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend, and many others, would have liked me to go further. I would have liked to go further, but, for the reasons which I have given, this is as far as I can go for the immediate present.

Sir R. Russell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the purpose of the restriction about garage accommodation? Is it to help preserve the car, or to prevent obstruction on the roads?

Mr. Robinson: It is mainly to help preserve the car, to protect what is, after all, public property.

Mr. Brooks: Will my right hon. Friend accept that both sides of the House will give a very sincere cheer for his announcement, indeed they will give two sincere cheers, but that there is disappointment that he has not been able to go further? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figure given to the House last year that about £40 million would be involved over an eight-year period in supplying


cars to all these categories of disabled people who might be eligible for them is still a firm figure, and will he say whether there is no more than a financial obstacle to the introduction of amending legislation to enable such cars to be provided?

Mr. Robinson: The obstacle is statutory in the first place, and then we will have to consider the rate at which we can move forward in connection with the resources available and with the competing claims on the Service.
We have now made a more accurate estimate of the cost which would be entailed in supplying cars to all those who are now eligible for invalid vehicles. We believe that the initial capital cost will be about £30 million, and that maintenance and replacements costs will eventually be about £15 million a year. This is rather more than we thought earlier.

Mr. Marten: I am sure that the Minister regrets as much as I do the fact that we cannot do more. Is he now bumping up against the statutory limits to which he referred? Looking backwards, can he explain why in 1966 there were 172 fewer four-wheeled vehicles supplied than in 1965? It seems to be a curious thing.

Mr. Robinson: I should like notice of the last question. Did the hon. Member refer to invalid vehicles or cars?

Mr. Marten: Cars.

Mr. Robinson: The bulk of the cars go to war pensioners. I cannot explain offhand why the number was fewer last year, but there has been no change in the arrangements to explain it. I do not know whether it is correct to say that we are bumping up against the statutory limits now. I think that we have been bumping up against them for some years past.

Sir G. Nabarro: I welcome any measure which will improve transportation for the war disabled, but is the Minister aware that it took me eight months to wring from his Department, reluctantly, a mechanically-propelled invalid carriage for a 100 per cent. war disabled constituent of mine, a Mr. Victor Cleaver of Bretforton, Worcestershire. As there are widely differing views about amending legislation, will the Minister

talk to the Leader of the House about providing Parliamentary time before legislation is brought forward, so that room can be made for a non-party political debate in which Members can relate the experiences they have had in the last twenty years of helping war disabled men?

Mr. Robinson: I should welcome a debate on this matter, but that is not a question for me. I do not know whether a debate would be necessary for the purpose of framing statutory provisions. We know what we want in the way of powers to do what we hope eventually to do. I hope that the hon. Member for Kidder-minster——

Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South. You are out of date.

Mr. Robinson: Out of date. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I hope that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) will not assume that the delay in the provision of one of these vehicles was the result of bureaucracy. These are medical decisions as to the eligibility for vehicles. There may be complicated medical decisions in a particular case. I shall look into the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman again. but I would guess that probably it was a medical matter rather than an administrative matter which led to the delay.

Dr. Winstanley: May I add a warm welcome on behalf of my party for the statement made by the Minister of Health? It will be warmly welcomed by the disabled, by the doctors who have to deal with them, and surely by everybody else. What steps will the Minister take to publicise the new arrangements, especially among those in contact with the disabled, and the disabled themselves? Secondly, in computing the cost of further steps, will he also take into account the substantial economic benefits which can accrue from making the disabled more mobile?

Mr. Robinson: The last point raised by the hon. Gentleman is one that we take into account. One of the three categories of disabled is specifically linked with the ability of a disabled person to get to work. I hope that my statement will receive full publicity and anything that my Department can do to publicise it, it will do

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Minister aware that frequently in the last year I have asked him if he will consider a scheme whereby people entitled to a tricycle but who have a car should be allowed to pay the difference themselves? He has always told me to await his statement. I have now heard his statement, but there is no reference in it to the point that I have raised. Would he clarify the position?

Mr. Robinson: This is a difficult matter because, as I tried to explain in my statement, the arguments against going further than we have at the moment do not rest to any great extent on the difference in cost between the provision of an invalid tricycle and the provision of a car. The difficulty is that once one offers a car, or the equivalent of a car, or the difference between an invalid tricycle and a car, one widens the demand very considerably. We have to take that question into account.

TELEVISION (LINE DEFINITION STANDARDS)

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the method and timing of changing over the definition standard on which B.B.C.-1 and independent television are broadcast from the present 405-line standard to the 625-line standard on which B.B.C.-2 is at present broadcast. The White Paper published just before Christmas also recalled that it had already been decided that colour television should be provided only on 625-line standard; and that a colour service was to start on B.B.C.-2 towards the end of 1967. The White Paper recalled that it had always been recognised that the decision to provide colour television on 625-line definition standard was clearly related to the intention to change over the two 405-line services to 625-lines. It went on to note that my Television Advisory Committee had been asked to report as soon as possible on the method of changeover to be adopted.
The Committee reported to me on 24th January. In summary, it recommends that an early start should be made on the change of standards, using the duplication

method. This involves transmitting B.B.C.-1 and independent television programmes on 625-lines on ultra high frequencies as well as maintaining, for a number of years, the present transmissions of these programmes on 405-lines and on V.H.F. The Committee also recommends that colour should be introduced into the 625-line transmissions of B.B.C.-1 and independent television.
The advantages in adopting the Committee's proposals are these. First, it would enable the viewing public to receive all three services on the better standard, and in colour. Secondly, it will permit of the manufacture of single-standard, 625-line only sets, which will be cheaper for the viewing public to buy than the dual-standard set. Thirdly, concentration on the 625-line standard would improve export opportunity not only because this standard is in general use throughout Europe and widely elsewhere but because it would widen the domestic basis for the growth of colour television at a time when overseas television services will be turning to colour.
Against the economies to be realised through better and cheaper sets has to be set the cost to the two broadcasting organisations of duplicating the transmission of B.B.C.-1 and independent television. This expenditure will, however, be spread over a period of ten to fifteen years. The statement in the White Paper that no increase in the licence fee will be required before 1968 is unaffected.
The Government have decided to adopt the recommendations of the Television Advisory Committee, and immediately to authorise the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to undertake the duplication on 625-lines and in U.H.F. of their 405-line, V.H.F. services. If all goes well, the duplicate services should start in London, the Midlands and the North simultaneously within the next three years. In this way, the duplicated programmes, including colour, would be available to nearly half the population from the outset. The expectation is that, by the end of 1971, they would have achieved about 75 per cent. coverage.
There are two points which I must emphasise. First, there is no question of viewers' 405-line sets becoming useless


overnight. There need be no misgivings on that score. B.B.C.-1 and independent television will continue to go out on 405-lines for as long as is reasonably necessary—and this means a period of years. Secondly, it is of the essense that B.B.C.-1 and duplicate independent television, put out on 625-lines and U.H.F., should be literally duplicates of the 405-line service. They will not be a B.B.C.-3 and an I.T.A.-2. The whole point is to make the change-over from 405-lines to 625-lines; and it is essential to the exercise that new, single-standards sets shall be able to receive all television programmes.
The House will, I believe, recognise that this decision which I am announcing resolves the biggest single technical issue outstanding in the broadcasting field in Britain. It opens the way to the achievement of the objective of transmitting all services on the better line definition standard, and only on that standard. It broadens the basis on which colour television will be provided. It does, in fact, make three-colour television services available. It marks the beginning of the end of the continuing expense and complication of a dual standard. And it will provide a firm base for long-term planning both by the broadcasting authorities and the manufacturing industry.

Mr. Bryan: I do not wish to start on a discordant note, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the courtesies usually extended to the Opposition is that we see a statement half an hour before we hear it? He and, perhaps, the Patronage Secretary ought to be aware that this morning we did not receive this statement until six minutes before it was made. Perhaps he would look into this.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we certainly welcome the statement at first sight, bearing in mind American experience and how long it took colour to get off the ground there? We always considered that the limitation of colour to the minority B.B.C. audience was both unpromising as well as unfair. Could he be a little more specific on timing? His statement spoke about expenditure being spread over 10 to 15 years. At the same time, we hear that 75 per cent. of the population will have colour by 1971. Does that mean that the remain-

ing 25 per cent. will not get it for another 10 years, or spread out over 10 years?
What can we expect in the way of hours of colour broadcasts? What proportion of the programme will be colour? This will have a great bearing on whether people will buy sets, first of all with B.B.C.2 and second, in 1971, when B.B.C.1 and I.T.V. come into it. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any guidance on the availability of sets now that manufacturers will have a far clearer idea of what is wanted? Does he expect supply to meet demand as the whole programme develops? May I point out what a big bar to the spread of colour television is the 42 weeks' deposit necessary when hiring a set? That would work out, on a colour set, at about £70 or £80. If a deposit of that sort had to be paid for colour, this would be a real deterrent to the development of programmes.

Mr. Short: First, on the question of the statement, I apologise to the right hon. Member and the House and will look into the matter. I sent the statement to the right hon. Gentleman last night so I do not know why it did not reach him. With regard to the cost of colour sets, I agree that the present estimate is far too high. I have had some discussion with the industry about this, and with a broader base and a larger market I am sure that they will be able to bring down the price.
I cannot answer the question about hours of colour; it is a matter for the broadcasting authorities. With regard to coverage, the 10 to 15 years begins from this moment and the expenditure will begin immediately. The figures which I quoted were for 1971, and I expect that there will be remote areas of the country which will not receive it until the end of the 10 years. This is inevitable in anything like this, because one cannot cover the whole country at once. Considerable expenditure is involved, but from 1969 the whole U.H.F. network will develop together as one. I pay tribute to the high degree of co-operation between the I.T.A. and B.B.C., who will use common facilities and develop the thing together.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be read with some dismay and misgivings


in some quarters? Will he give an unqualified undertaking that 405-line transmissions will not be withdrawn until there is total coverage by 625-line on U.H.F.? Could he give the House an estimate of the total cost of producing complete coverage on 625-line U.H.F. and would he accept the figure which I have given before of £1,000 million over the next 10 years?

Mr. Short: The figure of £1,000 million is, of course, nonsense, with respect to the hon. Gentleman. The cost over the next 10 to 15 years for I.T.A. will be £30 million and for the B.B.C. £17 million. Against this expenditure, of course, is to be set the considerable saving to the public. When there is 625-lines on all three services, they will not need to buy dual standard sets and a set will be £5 to £6 cheaper. It is a matter of simple arithmetic to work out the enormous saving to the public after 1969; it will more than offset the cost to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. There is an actual gain here and a big saving to the public. With regard to the withdrawing of 405, this will, of course, be some years hence and will not be done in such a way that large numbers of sets will become obsolete.

Mr. Dobson: I compliment my right hon. Friend on his statement and the speed with which he decided once the Advisory Committee had reported. May I press him again on the cost of sets? This is a difficult matter for him, but surely, with the potential of 75 per cent. of the country being able to receive it in three years' time, there is a need for detailed discussion with manufacturers to keep the cost down from the outset of the service.

Mr. Short: I agree. As I said, I have had discussions with the manufacturers and I told them in a speech publicly ten days ago that their present prices were far too high. I think that the price I heard quoted was £309. They then came down a bit, but this was obviously on the basis of colour only on the limited B.B.C.2. Colour will now be much more broadly based and there will be an enormous export potential, so I am sure that the manufacturers will get their prices down.

Mr. Mawby: I think that the House will be pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has finally let us know that we are aiming steadily for 625-line standard; this will help everyone concerned. Can he assure us that both the broadcasting authorities will have enough transmitter coverage to ensure that, with U.H.F., which ca not transmit as far as V.H.F., there are not bigger fringe areas than at present? Of course, speed is of the essence, because manufacturers will certainly have to continue producing 425-line sets, particularly in the West Country and those parts of the country which will obviously have to wait for many years before they get a 625-line standard.

Mr. Short: I told the House that, for the first time, the two broadcasting authorities are developing this in co-operation. They will use common facilities, and I am sure that they will do their best to provide 100 per cent. coverage as quickly as possible. We should be clear about this. The whole country cannot be covered at once. Somebody must be first. We are ensuring that the South, the Midlands and the North start off together in 1969; thereafter, the whole system will be developed as one and we will cover the country as quickly as we can.

Mr. Harold Walker: Can my right hon. Friend be a little more specific about the areas which he defines as the South, the Midlands and the North? How far north? Would the area cover Lancashire and Yorkshire?

Mr. Short: I cannot be specific, but if my hon. Friend wants this information, I can get it for him. I am sure that it will cover the areas to which he refers.

Mr. Ridsdale: When can we expect colour television to come to Anglia? Second, what is the price of colour television sets at present in those countries which have adopted 625 for colour?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that I cannot answer either of those questions. I do not know how long it will take to come to Anglia Television, but I discussed this with some of Anglia's directors last week and I do not think that it will be very long. I am afraid that I cannot even hazard a guess at the prices of sets in other countries.

Mr. Randall: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this new development of the 625-line system will not in any way impair the improvement of those areas where there is faulty reception at the moment?

Mr. Short: The announcement this morning does not hold up the developments previously announced and which appear in the B.B.C.'s Report this year.

Mr. Kitson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving those areas which still have no television reception, like parts of my constituency, first consideration in these new schemes in the north of England'? Will he make certain that the booster stations scheduled for the North Riding of Yorkshire are not delayed by this decision?

Mr. Short: They will not be delayed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am very interested in one little valley in the North and he may be assured that I will keep this problem constantly in mind.

Sir M. Galpern: When will Scotland become involved in this?

Mr. Short: I have given some assurances to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about this. My announcement this morning in no way delays the plans already announced for Scotland.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the Postmaster-General really saying that he has no idea what colour television sets will cost?

Mr. Short: I did not tell the hon. Gentleman that at all. I told him quite specifically the prices I heard. The first price which I got from the manufacturers—from B.R.E.M.A.—was £309. They later told me that they could produce a set rather cheaper than that. Even so, I think that it is still far too high. I told them so in no uncertain terms. I expect the industry, after this announce-

ment, now that it can start its long-term planning, to jolly well get the price down.

Mr. Bryan: Can I underline once again the point about the hiring of sets, because, at the moment about three-quarters of all sets are hired? That proportion is rising the whole time. A very large proportion of the sets hired are second-hand, because no deposit is payable on the hiring of a second-hand set, whereas a deposit of 42-weeks rental is payable on the hiring of a new set. The deposit is the greatest bar now to any new set buying. A 42-week deposit on a set costing £300, or even £200, could still be very high and it could literally hold up the whole thing.

Mr. Short: I realise this. I cannot comment on the question of the deposit: this is a matter for the Treasury Ministers. To return to the question of the cost of a set, I am sure that this announcement will remove the uncertainty. It gives three services in colour. Many more people will be interested in getting the service. A much greater area of the country will be covered. The export market will be opened up a great deal. I am sure that, if the industry cannot get the price down, there is something wrong with the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. This gives three services in colour in the country. There was uncertainty before. There was only a limited amount of colour. The industry has now been given a very wide home base and an enormous export potential. If the industry cannot now get the prices down, there is something wrong with the industry. I look to the industry to get the prices down now.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must proceed.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF BORROWING POWERS.)

10.43 a.m.

The Chairman: I call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), in page 1, line 12, and suggest that with it there can be discussed the remaining two Amendments on the Notice Paper. If desired, there can be a Division on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Wingfield Digby).

Mr. David Webster: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out '£1,750' and to insert '£1,500'.
I agree, Sir Eric, that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the remaining two Amendments—in line 12, leave out '£2,200' and insert '£2,100'; and in line 12, leave out '£2,200' and insert '£1,900'.
I am sorry to see the Postmaster-General leaving the Chamber. The Bill asks the House of Commons to agree to the granting of an immense amount of money. I wish severely to reprove the Postmaster-General. Having just rebuked British manufacturers of television sets because their prices are too high, although he was unable to make the slightest comparison with prices on the Continent, he has now left the Chamber, having asked for this monstrous amount of money. I should now like to congratulate hon. Members opposite on making up the highest number that I have yet seen opposite at a morning sitting.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he was not here for the Second Reading debate?

Mr. Webster: Certainly not. I noticed that, for once, the hon. Gentleman was present and made a very pleasant speech. I thought that I could read his speech just as well as could listen to it, and probably very much quicker.
I return to the point that the Government are treating the Committee with scant respect in the matter of raising money. This is being done in the context of a very serious squeeze on finances throughout the private sector. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in various statements, and the Prime Minister said in his statement of 20th July last, that all unnecessary expenditure should be scrutinised and pruned. For that reason, it is essential that we scrutinise and, if necessary, prune the expenditure of the public sector.
At the same time as the private sector is being squeezed and is finding the greatest difficulty in raising equity and risk capital, it is being made much easier for the public corporations—the Gas Council, the Electricity Council, the National Coal Board, the Public Works Loan Board—to have immense amounts of public money. It is the function of the House of Commons to scrutinise the expenditure of the taxpayers' money, the money of the British public.
I hope that the Committee will not treat this issue lightly. It is exceedingly important. The scrutiny of public expenditure is one of the things that hon. Members on both sides are here for. I again express my severe reprobation of the Postmaster-General for just walking out of the Chamber, having delivered a completely unnecessary rebuke to private industry—the usual tactic one expects from Socialists—without having been able to tell us the comparative costs of equivalent sets abroad, with all the experience continental manufacturers have. The Postmaster-General has not even taken the trouble to find out the comparative price.
10.45 a.m.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) rightly said, we conduct this scrutiny in the light of what my hon. Friend called the endearing or engaging frankness of the Postmaster-General in expressing his pleasure that the Post Office would be freed from Parliamentary apron strings. I know that we do not want to interfere too much in the day-to-day running of the Post Office. On the other hand, there cannot be this complete liberty and licence with public money on the part of the Post Office.


Today we are asked to grant money to cover Post Office finances until 1971, knowing full well that the Post Office will be made a corporation in approximately three years' time. This matter should be scrutinised very closely. There is a borrowing of £880 million to cover an investment of £1,500 million.
Before I talk about the various aspects of the investment, I want publicly to pay my tribute to the Post Office and all who work in it. They are doing a very difficult job, and they are doing it to the best of their ability and exceedingly conscientiously. I know from my own experience that they always try very hard indeed. On the other hand, it must regrettably be said that the last Report and Accounts stated that the quality of the service had certainly not improved during the last year.
We are well aware that the demand for Post Office services is increasing, probably, except for the current year, faster than ever before. In the last few years the number of postal deliveries and the number of letters going through the post has increased immensely. The number of telephone subscribers and the demand on the telephone service has increased immensely. We appreciate that much of this investment money is necessary, but we cannot let £1,500 million of new investment go unchallenged.
I have read the speech which the Assistant Postmaster-General made on Second Reading. He did not answer many of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), who wound up for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that my hon. Friend was rather offensive in asking those questions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read the speech which my hon. Friend made and answer the questions today.
I should like to know about the progress of the McKinsey Report—[Interruption.]—not the Kinsey Report. That was on a different type of communication. I am talking about the McKinsey Report on the Post Office. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us what savings in expenditure can be effected from the McKinsey Report? What increase in revenue does he expect to get from the increase made in the

postage stamp rate over each of the next three years? I am sure that the Post Office has made estimates and will be only too glad to publish them because the increase on the letter rate and the heavy increase on the package rate have been in force for some time and it must be possible to give estimates for the next three years.
The Post Office slips through these increased charges rather slyly, like today, without my hon. Friend the Member for Howden being previously informed. The increases in the overseas postal charges were slipped through in the autumn without much attention being drawn to them. May we have an estimate of what increase in expenditure can be expected on the basis of the experience so far gained? I am not particularly optimistic of getting an answer because I see the Assistant Postmaster-General——

Mr. John Wells: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about the way in which the Post Office slipped through the increases in overseas postal charges, may I point out that young people overseas on V.S.O. have to pay the full postal price, which was increased at that time, and the Department was most curmudgeonly in refusing to allow young people on V.S.O. to enjoy the Forces' preferential rate? The Forces are comparatively well paid today compared with those on V.S.O. Therefore, this increase in overseas postal charges has had a very hard effect on them.

Mr. Webster: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. Many of us have relatives on V.S.O. and we feel very strongly that since they are not only performing this service in Britain's good name but doing something useful abroad they should be helped. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give us estimates of the increase in revenue which can be expected and what effect it will have on the traffic. I am the first to admit that probably many of our postal charges are cheaper than the charges made abroad and that they are being brought more into line.
There is considerable expenditure on new buildings and new machinery. We know that it is extremely difficult to mechanise the postal collection and delivery service and that it is a highly


specialised service. Many of the post offices were designed for conditions which operated many years ago. The sudden upsurge of traffic has made it almost impossible for the people in the sorting offices to work. I do not know how they do it. I respect their dexterity in the cramped conditions in which they work. At last, something is being done about the matter. New buildings are being erected.
What saving is it expected will be made from carrying out the labour-intensive side of these sortings by using great rotary sorting machines? Many of the old buildings which are becoming redundant occupy valuable sites. We wish to be assured on behalf of the taxpayer that when sold they are sold to the highest bidder, commensurate with the social necessities of the Post Office. We want to ensure that when Government property and buildings are sold the taxpayer gets a fair crack of the whip and that a proper price is paid for them. Like others who have served on the Estimates Committee, I know that in the sale of public buildings there frequently has not been adequate publicity of tenders. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who is a crusader for the public good on this issue, would be one of the first to support me on this point.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Would my hon. Friend agree that if this property is not sold to another Government Department it should go for public auction and not for private tender?

Mr. Webster: I agree. It would also be useful if a professional valuation were made of the property before it was sold. I am not satisfied that this is done in every case. My hon. Friend is performing a valuable public service in this respect. We appreciate that the expenditure of £45 million on sorting equipment over the next 10 years is probably extremely necessary. However, we wish to ensure that when old and valuable properties in the centre of our cities are disposed of the taxpayer gets a good crack of the whip.
I wish to raise a point on a small matter which again did not receive much publicity when it occurred and which, because of this, has unfortunately, stirred up ill-feeling against the Post Office.

What savings in overtime can be expected from the alteration in hours to 5.30 on weekdays and 4.30 on Saturdays? The public have been taken by surprise here. We appreciate that the Post Office is labour-intensive, particularly on the postal services side.
The Prime Minister stated on 20th July that there would be not unemployment but redeployment. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us to what extent the Post Office has benefited from this alleged redeployment? Is the manning situation easier? Can the hon. Gentleman answer the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central on the subject of the discussions with the trade unions? Can he tell the House what progress has been made in the Post Office on labour relations? We need to know answers to questions of this sort before we accept the expenditure of this vast sum of public money—this is the last chance that we have to talk about it—and before the Post Office is freed from its Parliamentary apron strings.
There has been a spate of new postage stamps. Some of them are very attractive. With others, one wonders whether the additional cost involved is worth while. What additional revenue does the Post Office get from the sale of first-day covers? I am sure that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), from the Welsh Plaid Cymru, if I might be allowed to address the Committee in Welsh, will want to know whether any Welsh stamps are to be issued.
I now move to the more dramatic side of the Post Office—the telephone service. This is very much more capital-intensive. Bristol, as usual, is in the forefront in these matters, despite its Parliamentary representation on the benches opposite. It pioneered the S.T.D. service. The Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, opened the service and spoke to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. We thought that this would assist the situation in Bristol, but what happened was that very much more traffic was deflected through Bristol and the problems of getting through from Bristol to London and other places became very acute. As more exchanges go on to S.T.D., we hope that these pioneering centres will have the burden taken off them so that the service is improved.
All this money is spent simply on getting a better service for the customer. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will tell us whether the 800,000 subscribers, a record figure—I gather that the waiting list is becoming much more static—will have a better service in future. The expenditure on them is considerable—£65 million this year and about £130 million next year. One wants to make sure that that immense amount of money is properly used, and that it will generate additional revenue which can be put to reserve to enable the Post Office to try to do a little more self-financing, so that the unfortunate taxpayer and subscriber does not always have to foot the bill.
11.0 a.m.
Despite the prices and incomes freeze, brought in with such bravado by the Prime Minister, we have seen a 100 per cent. increase in the lowest telephone charge, again done by the most extraordinary stealth. It is quite shocking that the Postmaster-General should brew up more schemes for imposing additional charges on a long-suffering public. We are told that, as a result of the change from a threepenny to a sixpenny call in public telephone boxes, there will be better value because there will be a longer call. Is that really a wise purpose? With an overloaded post office, we should keep calls brief and give a premium to the brief user.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Would the hon. Member not agree that, apart from the 100 per cent. increase, which many hon. Members on this side deprecate, there is also a loss of service? I had to use public telephones before I had a 'phone of my own and I then had a choice of a threepenny, sixpenny or shilling call. That choice is now reduced by a third, and therefore there is a loss of service to the public, quite apart from the increased charge.

Mr. Webster: I appreciate that point, and I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will spread it, because so many trade unionists who are not allowed to have an increase in wages are being inflicted with a 100 per cent. increase in telephone charge. This is very serious. That increased charge was first introduced at London Airport, and the first thing one sees when one comes into the airport is that the cheapest

charge has gone up by 100 per cent. What will the foreigner thing of the strength of sterling?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) said several times that there has been an increase of the cost of the telephone call. Would he explain that? Is he not aware that he gets sixpennyworth of call for the sixpence he now puts in, just as he did before?

Mr. Webster: I once fought the predecessor of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) at an election, and I hope that I never have the change of fighting the hon. Member. His point is valid, but my point is that what we want is to keep calls to the greatest brevity, just as I am trying to make my speech as brief as possible. But the vast number of interventions from the other side of the House is making that difficult.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I am sorry to prolong my hon. Friend's speech, but was not one of the arguments when STD was first introduced that it would enable people to make long-distance telephone calls and speak extremely briefly and thus increase business efficiency, and also that it would be convenient for other people who wish to ring up and speak for a very short time. Although the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East is right to some extent, does not the increase from threepence to sixpence defeat one of the purposes for which STD was introduced?

Mr. Webster: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has expressed the point much better than I tried to do. I appreciate the way in which he has clarified and distilled my thought on the matter. We want increased efficiency in the Post Office, and if we encourage our wives to have sixpennyworth of call instead of a threepenny call there will be a double burden on the Post Office. It is never the men who make the long calls but their wives.

Mr. Eric S. Haffer: The men must make long speeches.

Mr. Webster: Hon. Members have done me the great courtesy of taking so much interest in my speech. Because there is


a little less room on the other side of the House than usual, it has become more protracted.
I am sorry that I must now go on to some very technical matters, which I am afraid will bore the House exceedingly. During his Second Reading speech, the Postmaster-General said that he very much regretted that so much technical modernisation was going on with machinery like the Strowger type of exchange equipment, which he hinted might be becoming obsolete. When one has equipment that has been in use for some time but is still very adequate, although there is a risk that it might shortly become obsolete, one is faced with a terrible alternative of expanding rapidly on equipment that has not been adequately proved. That would be a great mistake.
On the other hand, I hope that if there is some doubt of the equipment's obsolescence it will be possible for experiments on the other type of equipment to be speeded up. Dollis Hill is very good in the way it works that type of experiment. I hope that then there will be no risk that in a few years' time, or in 1971, the House will again be asked for a vast amount of money because the equipment put in now has been rendered utterly obsolete. That is a very great danger in massive investment of this sort, with the electronic type of equipment being introduced now, and it is probably a considerable risk to put so many eggs into one basket of the Strowger type of equipment. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General give an assessment of the risk that it might be rendered obsolete, and that complete new equipping might have to take place?
Both my hon. Friends on the Front Bench stressed the issue of quality in the Second Reading debate. In rural areas we have particularly the problem of the person who signs an undertaking with the Post Office in good faith but suddenly finds that he is asked to share a line some years later. There is a difficult problem for the Post Office in that if he does not share a line the other chap cannot have a telephone line unless more cables are laid. Many people are genuinely taken by surprise by this, and I agree that in many cases it is possibly their own fault that they are surprised.

The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Member that this is not a Second Reading debate and that he must relate his observations to the precise Amendment he has moved.

Mr. Webster: I am very grateful, Sir Eric, and I immediately do so. How much of the equipment to be provided from the increase to £1,750 million will be devoted to increasing the facilities in rural areas to prevent people having to share a line? In many cases there is difficulty, and the people concerned are threatened with having their telephones cut off. It is a humane problem in which the Post Office sometimes appears to work in a high-handed manner, and I hope that some of that expenditure will prevent the necessity for that sort of thing having to continue.
The other side of the coin is a waiting list of 125,000 people, which is becoming static with the reduction of demand because of the prices and incomes freeze. Of the people on the waiting list, 24,000 are those for six months. One wants to introduce as quickly as possible the equipment for which we are asked to approve the money today, and to make sure that it is the right type, so that we do not have to ask the House in a few years for more money to put things right.

Mr. Harry Randall: The hon. Member is moving an Amendment in which he would decrease the amount of money that should be borrowed. How does he square his arguments for an improvement in efficiency with his request for a reduction in the amount?

Mr. Webster: If my Amendment received the Committee's approval, there would still be a very considerable increase of borrowing powers to the Post Office. The Amendment would not make a reduction of its borrowing powers, but an increase over the previous amount.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman knows that the amount proposed in Clause I is £1,750 million. The hon. Gentleman proposes to reduce that amount.

Mr. Webster: Yes, but I am also proposing on behalf of the taxpayer, with great generosity, to increase the amount from £1,120 million to £1,500 million. I


know that that amount of money is chicken feed to the hon. Gentleman, and that is an attitude which all of us on this side of the House deplore and regret.
The purpose of the Bill is to make available to the Post Office this vast amount of money, which we wish the Post Office to have, with a further review of a higher amount up to £1,900 million without further recourse to Parliament except by the procedure of both Houses. However, before it goes beyond that amount, we want the Assistant Postmaster-General to come to the House again so that we can debate the granting of the taxpayer's money to the Post Office. That is a principle which he, as a very senior member both of the Estimates Committee and other Select Committees which look into these matters, would wish to be subject to thorough Parliamentary scrutiny every time that the Post Office wishes to have further borrowing powers. I am sure that in his heart of hearts he agrees with me.
Then there is the novel Giro system. Can we expect revenue from that system to reduce the amount of borrowing which will be necessary, or will the cost of it mean that it is not running in a profitable manner? If the Giro system is run at public expense and at a loss, one wonders how much it is using public money to cut into the normal banking facilities. That again would be an erosion of the private sector at the expense of the taxpayer. It is a dangerous principle into which we would wish to probe.
It is a matter of great principle. It is the first time that it has been done in this country. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) with a pile of books on the subject. I am sure that we will all want to look into it thoroughly to see that public money is not thrown away and that the taxpayer's money is not being used against the taxpayer to subsidise unfair competition against him.
I should like to know how much of this money is being spent on the European Launcher Development Organisation, on E.S.R.O. and the communications satellites which will be floating through the sky. I hope that the answer is a great deal and that we can contribute to those Organisations to further real technological

co-operation in Europe and in the world. At the same time, we must be able to scrutinise the spending of this money. I have said both in this House and at the Council of Europe, on this and other technological subjects, that breakdowns in these matters—we know that E.L.D.O. was nearly abolished because of action by this Government—do not result from the failure of technicians but that of adequate budgetary control whereby costs escalate until someone digs in his toes and says, "This must stop".
It is even more important that there should be a reduction in the increased borrowing powers so that, in two years' time rather than four, we have the right in Parliament to find out how this money for E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. is being spent. If we do not do that, things escalate out of control, someone decides to withdraw unilaterally, and projects collapse. It is important that such matters should be scrutinised regularly to prevent that happening.
In Europe, we see a proliferation of communications towers, making increased communications possible because they get above the curvature of the earth. How many towers are proposed? I know that such a tower is thought to be a symbol of prosperity in a major city. However, to what extent are they absolutely necessary? One does not want to stop progress, but we must scrutinise how much is invested and what sort of savings we expect by abolishing previous forms of communications.
Those are some thoughts which the House might like to consider before joining me in granting this vast amount of money to the Post Office. We wish to increase its borrowing power to £1,500 million. We want it to have the money, and we hope that it uses it well.
I conclude by again paying tribute to the Post Office, but I say to the Assistant Postmaster-General that we want to know the answers to these questions before approving the expenditure of such vast sums of public money.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Heffer: There are occasions when I wonder whether the House is being serious in debate or whether questions are being raised merely for the sake of talking, hon. Members having some other and different projects in mind. It may


be that the discussion on this Amendment is such a situation. However, perhaps we can give hon. Members the benefit of the doubt and take it that they are genuinely concerned with the future of the Post Office services.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we are also concerned with the future of the House of Commons? The House has a duty and obligation to probe when Governments ask for very much greater borrowing powers. We are concerned not only about the Post Office but that we should scrutinise proposals and ask Ministers their reasons for wanting large increases in borrowing powers.

Mr. Heffer: I agree that it is right that we should be concerned with public money which is being spent. That brings me to the point which I intended to make. It seems strange that we should have a proposition in an Amendment which is likely to reduce the future development of the Post Office services. That is precisely what the Amendment does, unless hon. Members are not putting it forward as a serious proposition but merely as a probing Amendment to get certain statements from the Government. That is perfectly legitimate and within their rights——

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is the only form in which an Amendment of this sort can be tabled. It is a procedural form. From these benches we cannot table an Amendment to increase taxation but only a reduction. This is the only way in which we can discuss the matter.

Mr. Heffer: I am aware of that, and that is precisely what I am saying. The point that I am making is that, within this context, some of the points which have been made appear to be not terribly serious but are merely probing questions.
Together with a number of other hon. Members, I am deeply concerned with certain aspects of Government policy in relation to postal and Post Office services. I want to speak about some of the problems this morning, though I hope at not quite the same length as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). Nevertheless, there are

very important points which I should like to get clear from the Government before unequivocally giving my support to the Bill. It is quite right that we should know precisely what the Government have in mind. We are being asked to vote for a considerable extension of borrowing powers. Whether it is the reduced sum, as suggested by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, or the sum which the Government have in mind, it is a considerable amount of money.
There appeared on the front page of last Sunday's Sunday Express—a paper which I am not given to reading with any great enthusiasm—an interesting item which said:
£4 increase feared on phone rentals".
This is a very interesting and important item, if for no other reason than the fact that I have two telephones. This could mean to me personally, apart from my constituents and others who have telephones, a considerable increase in the annual charges.
Is the statement that appeared in the Sunday Express true? Have the Government any intention of increasing telephone rentals? If so, I should like them to bear the following comments in mind. Prior to entering the House, I was a member of the Liverpool City Council. I was an ordinary working man, working for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I had to have a telephone in order to carry out my city council activities. I was not a chairman of a committee in the early stages, and therefore I did not receive any financial assistance, but it was essential for me to have a telephone in order to look after my constituents, as it were. As a working man, this meant a considerable strain on my financial resources. Other councillors and working people are now in the same situation, because their salaries have not increased as mine has. The position of those people will be very difficult indeed.
I am not saying that an increase, as suggested, is part of Government policy, but before I give my support to the Bill I would ask the Government whether an increase is intended as part of Government policy. We cannot have it both ways. The Postmaster-General said, in his extremely interesting and very good speech on Second Reading, that the Post Office did not get all the capital it needed


from the Government. He said that the other element was composed of its profits.
If we know that we are making a profit, is it essential for us to have these increased rental charges? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that I am getting great support from hon. Members opposite. It might well be a case of saving myself from my friends on this occasion, but hon. Members opposite should not be too enthusiastic in their support of what I am saying, because I could well do without their cheers.
I am concerned about the thousands of ordinary working people who have telephones and those who want telephones. We want to see an expansion of this service. I am deeply and sincerely concerned about those people and the provision of telephones for them. want an answer from the Government about whether it is true that they intend to increase rental charges on telephones.

Mr. John Wells: When the Assistant Postmaster-General comes to answer this specific question, could he also tell us whether the Post Office intends to increase charges for telephone sockets. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that he had two instruments in his use and had to pay a fee for each instrument. It would be interesting to know whether the charge for a telephone socket is also in jeopardy of being increased.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting that question, which is important. This is a matter on which we must have some clarification. The Postmaster-General said on 20th January, that due to the economy measures announced by the Prime Minister,
The growth rate is now slightly lower …
That is, the expansion of the telephone service.
… than we had previously budgeted for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 833.]
So there has been a slowing down of the actual expansion and development of the telephone installations. This will be further slowed down if there is an almost doubling of rental charges, and this could be a terrible burden on ordinary people.
Earlier, we were discussing colour television. Colour television will be a luxury for a relatively select group of the popu-

lation. I do not want telephones to be a luxury service for a small group of the population. I take the view that everyone in this country has the right to a telephone in his house, whether it is the chap who sweeps the streets of Liverpool or a Member of Parliament. If we have this increase in rental charges, I very much fear that it will again begin to put the telephone out of reach of the ordinary working man. This is precisely at a time when there has been a wage freeze.
We have already had an increase in charges. I know that some of my hon. Friends do not entirely agree with me about this. They say that we now have six minutes for 6d. as against less time for 3d. The working-class chap who goes to a telephone kiosk may only want a couple of minutes, but he now has to put in 6d. as against the 3d. which he put in before. Whether we like it or not, that represents an increase to that man.
These are very important points. In relating them to the Amendment, before I give my full support to the Bill, I want some assurances that we will not have further increases of telephone rentals.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this morning the Postmaster-General laid strictures on private industry which is likely to develop colour television, if it cannot bring down prices? He said that they must bring prices down. He expected that with the expansion of the market prices would come down. But for a year or two we have had an expansion of the telephone market with great potential and the price has been going up.

Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Gentleman is strictly fair, he will agree that there is a lot of difference in the case of television and the possible suggestions—I do not know if the suggestions are true—which were made in the Sunday Express. Nevertheless, the point is reasonable and the increased charges will be an extra burden on the shoulders of particularly the lower paid sections of the community. That is what I am very concerned about.
11.30 a.m.
I now wish to turn to another question: How much of the extra money is to be allocated towards the development of local


radio services? I am a great believer in local radio stations and I particularly want such a station in the Merseyside area. I believe that on Merseyside we have a distinctive culture of our own. I was interested the other day to hear the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), who represents the Welsh Nationalist Party, suggest that we ought to have a stand at the Canadian international exhibition specifically for Wales. It sprang to my mind that it would be a jolly good idea to have a stand specifically representative of Merseyside, because of our distinctive culture.

Mr. Webster: And one for the South-West.

Mr. Heffer: Let us have a stand for each area. Why not? Seriously, I want to know how much of this finance is to go towards the development of local radio services.

Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make the point that now that Radio Caroline is being closed down for Merseyside, a station much appreciated on Merseyside, it is essential that something should take its place by way of a local radio station for Merseyside.

Mr. Heffer: That is rather wide of the Bill. Another Bill is coming which will deal with Radio Caroline and similar stations. However, I agree that we should have a local radio service for Liverpool and its environs and we must have an assurance from the Government that a considerable amount of this money will be used for the development of such services.
I return to what I was saying about telephone rentals. I do not know whether it is true that there is to be an increase, or whether this was merely a story to help to sell the Sunday Express. I hope that the Government are not considering any increase in telephone rentals. It would be a seriously retrograde step which would have serious and long-term effects on the development and expansion of the telephone service.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) spoke for some time. I will

therefore be comparatively brief since I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate.
I fully agree with what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said about telephone rentals. In my intervention I made it clear that I thought that in this service the Post Office had failed to take advantage of the growing market and the growing possibilities for providing more telephones. This country probably has fewer telephones per head of the population than many other countries in Europe. If we are to go into the European Economic Community it is essential that we improve the availability of telephones. That is not done by a further increase in rentals following the increases in recent years.
I am especially concerned that the Bill appears to give very large borrowing powers to the Postmaster-General for a period not of two but of four years. These may be the last comments by the Committee or the House on the matter, for a corporation may be set up before we reach the stage when we consider further borrowing powers, or even before the time when this matter can be discussed again simply on an Order.
It is incredible that the Post Office should be asking for such borrowing powers and even more incredible that the Treasury should agree to an almost 30 per cent. increase in borrowing at this time. I understand that as the Budget approaches one of the matters concerning the Chancellor of the Exchequer is Government expenditure and the need for Government money to service Departments. I understand that the Chancellor is trying to cut down all round, and yet here lie has apparently agreed to this very large increase in these borrowing powers. I am concerned that the House of Commons will not be able to watch the use of this money over this period. The situation would have been happier if we had been able to consider the matter again next year and the year after.
It is also possible that before the four years are up we shall have another General Election, so that the Government may be providing enough money for the Post Office for the whole period of their office. I cannot think that that is something which will commend itself to the Committee. I understand that a good


deal of reorganisation is going on in the Post Office—it is certainly affecting my own area—and we are having amalgamations of various departments, the cutting-down of staff and so on, and this is affecting, the services given to the public.
The Postmaster-General was in my county last week. We were very pleased to have him there. I understand that it was a very fine day. He presented prizes to school children and did it very well, and everybody enjoyed seeing him. He was shown the local post office, which is very old, dating back to the nineteenth century. He let slip the fact that in those started, postal services were more frequent than now. Yet he is asking for this great increase in borrowing power, knowing that the service provided today is not nearly as good as it was 50 or 100 years ago, at least in frequency of delivery and pick-up.

Mr. Dobson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a lower frequency of delivery does not necessarily mean a deterioration of service?

Mr. Lewis: I accept that, but the cuts in deliveries arising from staff difficulties and so on, which are admitted by the Post Office, nevertheless mean a less frequent service and a less frequent pickup. Other Governments have had this same difficulty. But this increase in borrowing power is coming at a time when there is a reduction in the service provided for the public. I would like to hear in detail from the Assistant Postmaster-General what is to happen to this money.
This morning, the right hon. Gentleman made a statement about colour television, which is a great step forward. We were all pleased to have that statement for which we have been waiting for some time. We took the point that he made about the cost of a colour television set being too high, about £300. No one wants to be in the position of having to choose between buying a mini-car or a television set. The price of these sets must be brought down. The Postmaster-General said that it would cost £17 million for this reorganisation, to introduce colour television on B.B.C., and about £31 million for I.T.A. Since there are increased borrowing powers in this Bill, will some of the money be made available to the B.B.C. to meet these costs?
Is it the Postmaster-General's intention to press upon the Treasury that it should take less money from the independent television authorities, who are already paying it very large sums of money which they cannot continue to do if at the same time they must find £31 million to develop colour television? The Postmaster-General is not justified in asking for such large increases in borrowing powers if, at the same time, he says to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. that they must engage in this development without receiving further financial assistance, by borrowing, by grants or by some reduction in taxation. It is important that the Committee should probe such a grave matter, and I hope that my hon. Friends will continue this debate, if not today then during another morning sitting so that we can have a full answer from the Assistant Postmaster-General.

Mr. Ridsdale: I welcome this opportunity of scrutinising the borrowing powers of the Post Office, especially when such a large sum of money has been asked for. We often ask for sums of money to be spent, and it is very good that we should scrutinise the expenditure in the taxpayers' interests. I welcome the speeches made on this side of the Committee and the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), who has been very concerned about the increase in telephone rental charges, coming at a time when the Post Office is asking for these increased borrowing powers.
We were told that increased productivity would pay for a great deal of all the necessary expansion needed in so many of our industries. It was a plank of the Government's platform at the last election. Yet here, in these nationalised industries, where there should be opportunity to increase productivity and absorb increased costs, time and again Ministers ask the House of Commons for more money, and greater borrowing powers.
When one looks at the amount of capital invested in the Post Office and some of the other public industries in the last few years, one is bound to ask whether one is getting value for money and what is the net return on the money being invested. The net return on the capital invested in the nationalised industries as a whole is not nearly as high as the net


return on capital invested in private industry. For this reason we need to look very closely at what is happening, particularly since the Postmaster-General is unable to tell me what would be the cost abroad of a 625-lines colour television set. If he does not know the answer to that question, is he looking into the items of cost in the Post Office? It was amazing that he did not know that answer.
11.45 a.m.
I want to discuss the level of expenditure in the Post Office and to see whether this amount of borrowing is necessary. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), I wish to ask some very detailed questions about the spending and efficiency of the Post Office. Now that the Assistant Postmaster-General is here, he will be aware that I asked him a question earlier this year about the loss of a telegram, which caused a £47,000 loss in our invisible exports.

Mr. Heffer: It was an invisible telegram.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the hon. Gentleman says, it was an invisible telegram. I do not want to go into detail, because I hope to have an Adjournment debate on it.
It is this challenge to efficiency and these sort of losses which make one want to scrutinise the accounts so carefully. It is said that the net return on capital for 1963–64 and 1967–68 should be 8 per cent. I wonder whether that return is being reached. I have a feeling that it was something of a day-dream to hope for that sort of return. One is extremely disturbed that people should ask the House of Commons for more money with the knowledge that that return is not being reached, at least on the postal services, although it may be reached on some of the telephone services.
What are the accumulated losses to date? Are the losses given in the last White Paper on the postal services in 1966–67 the losses to date, or will there be further losses? I hope that, when he replies, the Assistant Postmaster-General will deal with that point. What has been the yield on the increased charges, and can we expect more such charges, bearing in mind the enormous amount of borrowing power which the Post Office is now

seeking? At a time of freeze, when prices must be kept stable, the Post Office, instead of asking for these enormous powers should be setting an example to the rest of the country and should have not increased its telephone charges 100 per cent. from 3d. to 6d.
It is iniquitous for a Government to attempt to fool the House of Commons and the country in this way. This is what is happening and we are allowing it. The sooner the country wakes up and realises the kind of Government that we have, and the way in which they are trying to fool everyone and to raise prices without setting an example to the country, the better.

Mr. Dobson: I have interrupted on this point before, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman accepted the burden of my interruption. The hon. Gentleman said several times that the charge has been increased. Would he explain that? People are getting 6d. worth of telephone time for 6d. Where is the increase?

Mr. Ridsdale: People who have to pay 6d. when they paid 3d. before will know quite easily from their own pockets where the increase is.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Previously, people got 3d. worth of telephone time for 3d. Now they are getting 6d. worth of telephone time for 6d.

Mr. Ridsdale: Not all the people in this country are a long-winded as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Webster: The corollary of what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) is saying is that anybody who travels by rail should be compelled to buy a return ticket.

Mr. Ridsdale: What is disturbing is the complete inconsideration of hon. Members opposite and their disregard of what 3d. means to ordinary people and retired people, particularly in my constituency and in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends. They wave 3d. aside as though it means nothing, and yet if we do not take care of the pennies we cannot take care of the pounds or the thousands of millions of pounds in extra expenditure for which we are being asked.
What is so wretched is that, in spite of all the extra borrowing powers for


which the Government are asking, there is a steady deterioration in postal services.

Mr. Dobson: That is not true.

Mr. Ridsdale: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true. I should like to quote a personal example of how the services have deteriorated. I have my letters forwarded to my home in London from the post office in the House. I wished to collect them because they are not delivered on Saturdays as they used to be. I went to the sorting office in the Fulham Road and asked whether I could have my letters because I wanted to answer them so that my constituents could get a quick reply. I was told, "The sorting office is closed at 1 o'clock and you will have to wait for your letters". Although one wants to give service, one is prevented from doing so because of the closing of the sorting office.
I agree with what my hon. Friends have said about the work of the postmen and other Post Office officials. They are doing their best to work hard and to do their job. What we challenge is the management. We wonder whether management in the Post Office is efficient.

Mr. Dobson: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Post Office workers are doing their job, as everyone in the House admits they are, there is an obligation on the management to give half days off on some Saturdays to some postmen? It is not very many who get them.

Mr. Ridsdale: It is perfectly right that people should work and play. But we should be able to work and play and provide the same service. This is what is meant by productivity. Without an increase in productivity there will be a steady deterioration in the service. I protest against the steadily deteriorating service because I am concerned about the amount of money being spent. I do not believe that we are getting value for money in some of the publicly-controlled industries.
What was the reason for the increased charges? We were told last year that postal finances were expected to break even in 1966–67 and to show a return on capital of 5·4 per cent. Was that

another of the Government's daydreams? Was that said because they knew that another election was coming soon and they wanted to dress up what was being done in the Post Office? We are most concerned about the return on capital in the nationalised industries. Has there been a return of 5·4 per cent. on capital in the Post Office? What is the net return on the capital invested in the postal services and in the telephone service?
The shortfall deficit of £8 million for 1966–67 related to the norm of an increase of 3½ per cent. in wage rates in the National Plan. What has been the norm in pay increases in the Post Office? What is the shortfall? What savings have been made through increased mechanisation? Has productivity increased? Has the estimated 2 per cent. average improvement in output per man been achieved? Has manpower—[Interruption.] I have no doubt that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who has just come into the Chamber, will be able to give us better answers than the Assistant Postmaster-General.

Mr. Webster: Does my hon. Friend think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will talk about circuits or deliveries?

Mr. Ridsdale: We will leave that for the moment.
I was talking about increasing productivity in the Post Office. When I was Under-Secretary of State for Air, we were able to save considerable sums of money in the Defence Ministries, in spite of what hon. Members opposite said, by making cost effectiveness studies. [Interruption.] Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that at the Dispatch Box, please? I wished to give way to the hon. Gentleman because he said something. I am surprised that we should still be getting from the hon. Gentleman electioneering which should have been done at the last election when we are discussing this very important matter.
Cost-effectiveness in the Post Office is very important. What has been done about the manpower report and about increasing efficiency? Are enough cost-effectiveness studies being made in the Post Office?

Mr. Randall: Too many.

Mr. Ridsdale: The hon. Gentleman says that there have been too many, but, in view of some of the borrowing powers to which we are being asked to agree, we wonder whether enough cost effectiveness studies have been made.
Like the hon. Member for Walton, I am most concerned about the increase in telephone charges. I agree with him that many more people should have their own telephones. He quoted the example of a councillor in Liverpool. Retired people living in country districts and lonely people who wish to telephone the doctor are denied the opportunity of having a telephone because of the increased charges. I am concerned about this. More and more of these services which should be made available are not being made available because productivity is not being increased and we are not getting value for money.

12 noon.

Mr. Dobson: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member again, but he rather asked for it. He said it several times and I forbore to interrupt before, but now I cannot allow it to pass any longer. He said that productivity in the Post Office is not increasing. That is palpably untrue, and he must know that it is if he looks at the accounts.

Mr. Ridsdale: I want the answer from the Assistant Postmaster-General.

Mr. Webster: Paragraph 30 of the Post Office Report and Accounts says:
Overall, therefore, there was some deterioration in the quality of the automatic services.'
This paragraph has been referred to on a number of occasions. The Post Office is very doubtful about the quality of the services given last year.

Mr. Ridsdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A number of hon. Members wish to interrupt me, but this is Committee stage and I am sure that they will avail themselves of the opportunity if they catch the eye of the Deputy Chairman. I have no wish to prolong the discussion, but I wish to register my very strong feelings about the increases in charges, especially as the Post Office knew that it would come to the House to ask for authority to borrow vast amounts of money.
Productivity may be going up slightly, but I challenge some of the figures about the return on capital. I want to see a much more detailed return. I am talking about the net return, not the gross return. Many of these things are confused about net and gross returns. The Government pride themselves on being the protector of the consumers' interests. In this matter the Government are in no way being the protector of consumers' interests. They are putting increased charges on to the consumer and asking for more money from the taxpayer. This shows why we have to make a very close scrutiny of all these Bills. That is why I welcome the opportunity to intervene in this debate. Many people are most disturbed about the increases in charges at the same time that the Post Office is asking for huge amounts by borrowing.

Mr. James Dempsey: I am rather surprised to hear this argument about productivity. It is distressing to hear the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) say that productivity is not increasing. He has now indicated, however, that he agrees there has been a slight increase, so he is moving in the right direction.
I should like to know what he means by productivity. Surely he cannot deny that postal services and telecommunications have been expanding. This Bill provides certain borrowing powers to improve that expansion. When we look at the Reports we discover that many miles of underground cables have been laid for the purpose of improving productivity. The hon. Member cannot deny that the new services provided in peripheral areas of cities have also been an improvement.

Mr. Ridsdale: I have been cross-questioned about increased productivity, but the Report said that it was hoped there would be increases in productivity and that a 2 per cent. increase is equivalent to the saving of 3,000 men. I want to know whether that target has been achieved.

Mr. Dempsey: The hon. Member is bound to concede that we have made substantial progress in this direction. No doubt my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to quote


the percentages. We must be proud of the fact that these services have been expanded during periods of difficulty.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) will also deal with the difficulties he has been experiencing about certain matter sent through the post. He has conducted a long Parliamentary campaign about this very proper Post Office service.

Mr. Dempsey: Having caught the Deputy Chairman's eye I think it is for me to make my speech in my own way. I shall defer to another occasion the matter referred to, for we have far too many other matters to deal with now. If the opportunity should arise, I should be happy to indulge in debate with the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on that subject, but now we are dealing with the question of expanding the services. To do so we require money. Increased expenditure of any kind is always frowned upon, but generally the public have a sense of responsibility. They are anxious to ascertain whether they are getting value for money and that is the problem to which we should address ourselves.
I listened with deep interest to the discussion about increases in telephone charges. I wonder whether it is realised that there are large communities in some areas in which people cannot pay these increased charges. In some areas, if one wishes to telephone to a doctor, a nurse or a clergyman one cannot find a telephone kiosk which is available for use.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend when he is making a valuable and important point, but I wish to bring out a point which underlines the matter about which I was speaking earlier. In precisely the areas to which my hon. Friend has referred, large council estates, there is often a working man who has a telephone in his house. If we doubled the telephone rental charges it would mean that many of those people would be forced to withdraw their telephones. That would make the position in those areas even worse.

Mr. Dempsey: I appreciate that, but my hon. Friend must realise that I am not dealing with residential telephones

but with kiosks. In my district we had the experience of a policeman being brutally attacked by thugs. This was on the perimeter of Glasgow. A young clergyman who came to his rescue went to three kiosks which were not in operation and could telephone only when he got within the boundary of the City of Glasgow. As we are giving the Post Office borrowing powers in order to provide these services, what is its attitude towards such a problem as that?
Many suggestions have been made. I made one myself, which has never been considered by local postal authorities. I know of persons who are willing to volunteer to have telephone kiosks on their doorsteps or in their council house front gardens and to accept responsibility for the supervision of them. However, for some reason, our postal authorities will not consider such suggestions. They reject that type of representation and give no logical reason why such requests should be refused.
I should like the Assistant Postmaster-General to give some indication how this indispensable service is to be maintained in an age when, unfortunately, we have a number of social discontents in our communities. There are cases of houses being burned to the ground because telephone kiosks were out of order and it was impossible to contact the fire service in sufficient time.

Miss J. M. Quennell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not an attitude on the part of the postal authorities which is confined to Glasgow? In the centre of Petersfield, there is an over-provision of kiosks, whereas in the developed outskirts there is a shortage. The Post Office authorities will not consider transferring some of the existing kiosks to more sensible sites. Equally, they have refused any explanation for not agreeing to this sensible rationalisation, which both I and the urban district council want.

Mr. Dempsey: If the hon. Lady is successful in catching the eye of the Chair, no doubt she will develop that point.
There is a need for a review of the general attitude to the provision of public telephone kiosks, irrespective of the size of the community, its nature or the distances involved. From time to time I find that, when a kiosk is provided, the Post


Office determines unilaterally where it should be sited.
In certain circumstances, it is essential to have two kiosks in a given area. If that means that the money must be found, we are duty bound to find it. I assure my hon. Friend that there would be no objection from parts of my constituency if such kiosks were provided on the basis of increased charges being made, because I speak for people who have no domestic telephones and no public kiosks. I ask my hon. Friend to address himself to that very delicate problem.
Another matter which I have raised from time to time in Questions is the subject of colour television. It is very difficult to defend delay after delay in its introduction. It is galling to find that the vanquished nations of Germany and Japan have colour television, when the victors are not within sight of it. I understand that the 625-line system has been approved and generally accepted. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we do not aim even at having colour television phased over a period of time.
Unless there is some programming of its development, we will not get the association with manufacturers which is essential. There must be integration between the development of one and the operation of the other. It would be unfortunate if, as a result of the perfunctory introduction of a service, we found the manufacturers unprepared and still manufacturing the old sets.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): I do not want to interfere with the way in which my hon. Friend is developing his speech, but I would remind him that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General made a statement this morning about colour television. I appreciate that my hon. Friend was not present at the time, and I advise him to read that statement.

Mr. Ray Mawby: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Irving? Is there any provision in this Bill for capital to provide colour television or, for that matter, any other sort of television? Is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of widening our discussion into a general debate on the White Paper on broadcasting? If that is so, can we widen this debate into a general discussion on that White Paper?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think that the most useful guidance which I can give to the House is to say that nothing which the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has said so far is out of order.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General for intervening, but I had not reached the point of my argument. In passing, may I remind the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that we have had a dissertation on colour television this morning from one of his hon. Friends. Is it intended to establish a liaison committee between the Post Office and the industry in general? What co-operation will exist, and what programming of its development will be considered? In the light of such consideration, is it the intention to ensure that the industry is represented fully, not at the culmination of discussions, but at a stage when they are at the elegant bones of consideration? I have asked that question from time to time, but still I have no assurance that there will be liaison between the Post Office and the industry on timing the introduction of the service.
I feel that we are entitled to improve the service. We understand that mistakes will be made. Mistakes are being made at present. However, I would not charge mistakes due to inefficiency in the management of the departments of the Post Office on postal services in general. However, it must be conceded that, in a period of relatively full employment, the postal services no longer recruit the cream of labour as they were able to in years gone by. During such peak periods as Christmas, they have to rely on certain types of labour which are not suitable and, sometimes, not reliable. Taking those matters into consideration, it must be said that the Post Office is doing an excellent job, in spite of one or two mishaps.
If I may give an example of the sort of mistakes which occur, for some time I have been trying to discover how it is that the telephone department can fail to send out accounts. The Assistant Postmaster-General should look into this matter. I learned yesterday that, in one area, several hundred accounts were not


sent out. As a consequence, I am informed that a number of people were in danger of losing their residential telephones, not having paid their accounts.

Mr. Ridsdale: Where did that happen?

Mr. Dempsey: In the town of Airdrie, which I represent, in Lanarkshire, Scotland.
Obviously there has been some mistake. These mishaps can occur. We all appreciate the old saying, "As for he who makes no mistake, there is no such man." It must always be remembered that:
To err is human, to forgive, divine.
This type of mishap may arise because we have not spent enough money in developing the department and recruiting the proper type of staff.

Mr. James Dance: This is not confined to Scotland. The other day I received a letter from the Post Office apologising for not sending me an account. It was about three to six weeks out of time. This sort of thing happens in London too.

Mr. Dempsey: One can understand an individual case occurring, but it is difficult to understand when hundreds of cases occur. Obviously something is radically wrong. There has been an omission, or an error, somewhere and I hope——

Mr. Webster: These things are usually sent through a mechanised accounting scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any new form of accounting scheme which is provided for under these new borowing powers?

Mr. Dempsey: At the moment we are unable to say what has caused the mishap, and I am asking my hon. Friend to inquire into it.
Will my hon. Friend assure the House that these increased borrowing powers for which he is asking will provide him with the necessary monetary support to increase the efficiency of our services? It is possible that the present inefficiency is due to a shortage of staff. It is possible, too, that there is a lack of up-to-date mechanical equipment. We know that considerable developments are taking

place in the use of computers—one is being built for the Income Tax Department in Scotland—and there may be teething troubles. I recognise that these problems can arise from any, or many, of these developments, but what we are anxious to ensure is that under the provisions of this Bill there will be ample opportunity to improve efficiency, and that my hon. Friend will have at his disposal sufficient money for this purpose.
I listened to one hon. Gentleman opposite talking about the increased cost of the services, and demanding that economies should be made. He did not suggest how we should cut costs, and this is what we want to know. If it is intended to deny the Government these borrowing powers to provide the services which we require, hon. Gentlemen opposite should be courageous enough to tell us the things on which we should not spend money, what we can do without, and what we should ask the public to sacrifice in order to keep down costs.
I hope that we will take a responsible attitude about this. If we require the money, we must provide it, but we are entitled to ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that we will get value for the money spent.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Graham Page.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): Hear, hear.

Mr. Graham Page: I was gratified to hear that "Hear, hear" from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I was going to congratulate him on his promotion to the Postmaster-General's Department. At one moment during the debate we were left with only the hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench, and it seems to me to be symbolic of the service provided by the Post Office, that, although for about two and a half hours we have been discussing a Bill which will allow the Post Office to have £2,200 million, only in the last moment or two has the Postmaster-General himself joined us. This is a vitally important Bill, and we would have been justified in having the senior Minister present throughout our discussions.
I congratulate my geographical, if not my political, colleague from Merseyside, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on the points which he put forward, and I hope that I shall not embarrass him by showering too many bouquets on him. He raised two very important points in connection with telephone charges and local radio, and I interrupted him because the local radio issue has become extremely important on Merseyside during the last few weeks.
In this Bill we are asked to authorise an increase in the borrowing powers of the Post Office. In return, we should be told to what extent this money will be devoted to the installation of local radio stations, because there may be some proceeds from those stations for the Post Office. We might be satisfied about authorising the borrowing of this money if we are told that it is to be invested in building local radio stations. Some gain would accrue to the Post Office from such a move, not to mention the benefits which would be provided for the public in my area.
Merseyside is the most densely populated area in the country. It has 10 miles of pierhead, and Liverpool is a real community of people. It has two cathedrals, two famous football teams, and a great university. It has all that, and the Beatles, too. Here there is a real community which needs a local radio station, but it is to be deprived of the one station which it enjoys, Radio Caroline, and I want to know whether the money which we are to allow the Post Office to raise will be devoted to providing a local radio station on Merseyside. I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer about that.
I congratulate, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) on the extremely concise way in which he put his finger on so many defects in the Post Office service. It is right that we should discuss these defects when we are being asked to allow the Post Office to borrow £2,200 million, and it is right that we should do this now, because this is for a period of four years. As has already been mentioned during the debate, we may never have another chance to discuss this. We are discussing whether the Post Office should have mil-

lions of £s extra to tide us over the next four years, and it is right that we should consider this in great detail.
Under the present Government, it seems that the administration and the management of the Post Office have lost the concept of public service. I do not believe that the employees have lost their concept of it. Many of us in this House come into contact with Post Office employees in our constituencies at Christmas time when we visit post offices to see what is happenning in the sorting offices, and so on. Many of us have become well acquainted with Post Office employees through our children taking Christmas jobs in the Post Office. My son and daughter did so frequently when they were the right age for that, and I came to know some of the Post Office employees through them. They are a very good crowd, and very loyal to the service, and the public are not getting the benefit of that loyalty because of the management of the Post Office as it exists at the moment.
Anything which seems to be convenient or to give pleasure to the public in the Post Office service is being whittled away. Instead of concentrating on increasing the number of telephones, all that we are getting is a concentration on increasing the numbers that one has to dial. I used to be able to remember the letters of the exchanges. I cannot see what saving there is under the new system, and I now have to try to remember a whole set of numbers. In addition, I am told that those who might have helped me to remember these numbers—the directory enquiry service—have been ordered not to be helpful any more, to cut down on the time that they take to answer inquiries.
We now have the threatened increase in rentals, to which the hon. Member for Walton drew our attention by his reference to the Sunday Express, and there is also the increase in the charge for each call. I deliberately call it an increase. We have discussed the question of 3d. and 6d. during the debate this morning. If a person goes into a call box and has to put in 6d. when he wants to make only a 3d. time call, that is obviously an increase in the charge.
One also has to put up with delays in getting repairs carried out. Some little


time ago my telephone went out of order, and it took 10 days to repair it. The repairers then came and put a strange wire all round my house in the course of repairing the telephone. I had never had that wire there before, and, following the re-connection of the telephone, during the last few days each time I have had a call on my telephone there has been the sound of a lifted receiver somewhere else, and deep breathing. Am I being tapped? I want to know about this. I want to know why the repairs took so long——

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Bishop.]

MORNING SITTINGS (BUSINESS)

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order. May we have some assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Order Paper for morning sessions will not be overloaded as it has been? I have sat here all Monday and now all Wednesday waiting to speak on the Gloucester Order, if I am successful in catching your eye. The Minister who is due to reply to me has sat here all morning waiting to reply. There was obviously not a cat in hell's chance of our getting on, yet we have all had to be here. Cannot business be arranged more evenly in the mornings, so that hon. Members and Ministers do not waste their time waiting to speak when they know that they never will?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Member. The Chair does not control the timetable. The Government do that.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does this not indicate that we should ask the Select Committee on Procedure to deal with this point, so that more time can be made available to discuss matters which hon. Members opposite want to discuss?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member has other means of expressing that view.

Mr. Kershaw: There is a special urgency about Prayers, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They have to be reached by a certain date. The Gloucester Order must be discussed in this House by Friday or it will not be discussed at all. That gives a certain discipline to the matter, which I am sure the Leader of the House would like to consider.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It may be more appropriate for the Leader of the House to refer to it in a business statement.

MESSRS. J. M. BALFRY, BORDON

12.33 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: I wish to raise the case of Messrs. J. M. Balfry, of Bordon, and their concession from the War Department. This is the case of a small family business which finds itself in desperate straits because of the extraordinary behaviour of the Administration in their dealings with that firm. I contend that the Administration have been dilatory and monstrously unfair. Messrs. Balfry, on the other hand, have sought by every means in their power to meet the requirements of the Ministry and have leant over backwards to be helpful. The only result is that at the end of about 37 years of negotiations they face the prospect of being thrown out on the road a few months hence, with no premises, no goodwill, and nothing to show for generations of service to the Armed Forces of the Crown.
I have a thick file of papers here. The Minister need not be alarmed. I have the documentation for every statement that I am going to make interleaved with my notes, so that I can establish the truth of everything I say.
Messrs. Balfry were established in 1894 in Bordon, on a concession or encroachment granted from the then Minister of War. Their business originally was to supply newspapers, refreshments and sundries of all descriptions to the men who built the camp before the arrival of the troops, who were destined for the South African wars. The first Balfry then supplied a similar service to the troops of those days, even moving with them when they were on exercise under canvas, when he, too, went under canvas and moved with his supplies.
The requirements of the soldiers of those days were somewhat different from those of the modern soldiers. The Balfrys have always moved with the times and their encroachments have been renewed over the years. Their premises were built on land owned by the War Office, but the land on which they stood remained the property of the War Office. That was, and is to this day, the nature of their tenancy.
However, in 1930 the War Office initiated discussions the purport of which was that the firm should move their

premises so that the War Office could use the land on which they stood for other purposes. Messrs. Balfrys were willing to do so, but negotiations were broken off by the War Office, on account of the need to curtail their plans. Again, Balfrys agreed. In 1937 the War Office opened negotiations once more, with a view to the Balfrys' moving so that the land on which their premises stood could be redeveloped for military purposes. In 1939, war broke out and the War Office dropped its negotiations. Messrs. Balfrys agreed to this.
This story will not bear endless repetition, although it repeated itself after the war. Again, Messrs. Balfrys agreed to negotiations, and when the War Office wanted more time they agreed to the negotiations ceasing. This, to say the least, must have been very unsettling to any firm trying to plan its future. Perhaps Messrs. Balfrys are used to it by now, for by now the firm was in the hands of the fourth generation of the family that had founded it, and the peculiarities of the administrative side of the War Office were a Mendelian factor inherited by each generation from its immediate predecessor.
When the Ministry of Defence, for the fourth time, initiated negotiations with the object of getting Messrs. Balfrys to move their premises 300 yards from their present site, on which they had been since the 1890s, Messrs. Balfrys again were willing to treat. Messrs. Balfrys' business is defined by the terms of their current agreement with the War Department as
a newsagent, tobacconist, confectioner, the sale of soft drinks, and sundries including the sale of patent medicines and toilet requisites.
Nowhere during these protracted negotiations has there ever been a breath of criticism of the service that the firm has rendered to the troops and garrison. The commander has been at pains to try to avoid any interruption of the service that Messrs. Balfrys offer to the troops and their families, which they cannot get from N.A.A.F.I. The firm supplies goods to the officers' mess, the corporals' club, and sergeants' mess, and has done for years.
In a letter in 1964, the garrison commander wrote:
This firm has had an encroachment since 1894, and the site of their present shop is


required for the extension of the building site for the new married soldiers quarters. They have given excellent service to the Army and we wish to allow them to perpetuate this.
Two years ago, in April 1965, he wrote:
Time should be allowed for Messrs. Balfrys to build their new shop on the corner of San Domingo Square and at the same time to carry on in their present location so as not to interrupt business or inconvenience the troops and families. It is anticipated that their present premises should be demolished in 1967, which should coincide with the completion of the new industrialised building.
Thus, by 1965 matters had seemingly progressed to that point where the phasing of the new encroachment and its development, with the transfer of the business to the newly created site of the shop, could be actively married to the termination of the old encroachment. Messrs. Balfrys expected that they would have their new shop, on a 99 year lease, nearly built by that time, and the demolition of the old shop was not unnaturally planned for early this year.
Here it is that the troubles of the Balfrys really begin. Last year the Minister of Defence for the Army issued a circular, two paragraphs of which play an important part in this story. They effectively removed the control of the encroachment from the Army and placed the firm in the hands of the area manager of the N.A.A.F.I. This circular requires all concession holders to obtain the area manager's agreement to any change in their business. Messrs. Balfry's did not anticipate any difficulty in this connection.
The firm was not, after all, changing the nature of its business but simply changing its site, and that at the strong behest of the Army. Indeed, the Army Land Agent is one of those who is trying to hurry it along as fast as possible. It therefore proceeded to secure planning permission and engaged shop fitters and architects and entered into commitments which have involved it in expense—and all in good faith. Its plans have been drawn up on the assumption that it will secure the necessary agreements to its changeover without much difficulty.
However, when the new circular was issued, Messrs. Balfrys again approached the area manager of N.A.A.F.I., at the behest of the Land Agent. By the terms of the circular, they have to secure his agreement and decision to proceed with

the new premises. That application went to the area manager and they had no reply. They then telephoned the gentleman, who came to see them. He told them, I am sorry to say, that, circular or no circular, he would not take a decision of that nature and that they would have to go to the head office of N.A.A.F.I.
Having received that piece of intelligence, they therefore approached the head office, routing it through the War Office, as they had been instructed. That was on 2nd August. September passed and they had no reply until about six weeks later. In that reply, the N.A.A.F.I. told them that it had the strongest objection to Messrs. Balfrys continuing the business and trade which they had maintained for over four generations from the 19th century. Balfrys, they claimed, were only and primarily a newsagent.
However, it condescendingly agreed that the firm should be allowed to continue to sell all those things which people very seldom want, which Balfrys had never stocked and which the British soldier seldom buys. I have a list, if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is interested in it. I will quote only a few of the items because it is fairly long. It includes postcard views, Easter cards, pens, pencils and ink, and indoor games usually sold by stationers. I must say that the indoor games usually sold by stationers are not generally bought by soldiers. The list finished up with petrol lighters, which were, oddly enough, not objected to.
To this objectionable letter, Balfrys replied on 19th September, protesting that they had been tobacconists and confectioners supplying sundries to the troops since the last century. This is true: I have seen the records and have photostats of their early receipts as tobacconists. They pointed out that the proposal would reduce their turnover to one-fifth. It would drive them out of business and deprive the two partners of their livelihood. Considering that the senior partner, a Miss Balfry, is nearing 60, this is a deplorable blow.
That letter went back on 19th September and, considering the urgency—Messrs. Balfrys had assured the Army that their present premises would be available for demolition in early 1967—which is what it is now—it is incredible that the N.A.A.F.I. head office should


have allowed this delay to continue. There was no reply to that letter until nearly a fortnight ago, 31st January, 1967. I believe that this was quite deliberate on the part of the N.A.A.F.I. It knew it had the firm in a cleft stick and meant to keep it there until it had moved it.
During this correspondence, the Ministry of Defence Land Agent had been trying to get the N.A.A.F.I. to a meeting at which the Army representatives, Balfry's and himself could thrash out the difficulties. On 18th January, he wrote that he had written to the N.A.A.F.I. urging them either to come to a quick decision on this matter or to meet him on this basis with Army representatives in order amicably to settle the outstanding points of difference. This is what N.A.A.F.I. has refused, despite the pressure from the Army and the Land Agent, throughout these protracted negotiations, which is why I say that its behaviour towards Messrs. Balfrys is quite intentional.
The Army Land Agent again had no success whatever and it is clear that the N.A.A.F.I. was determined to be as un-co-operative as it could and it was. On the last day, Messrs. Balfrys were informed that N.A.A.F.I. would condescend to allow them to sell tobacco in addition to the other thingss mentioned, but refused to entertain the idea that they should continue to exercise their concession under their 1955 contract with the Army.
It is monstrous that the N.A.A.F.I. can dictate to the Army that it should breach its own contracts with concession holders, but that is, apparently, the position. Even more disgraceful, it is clearly against the Army's own wishes and it is deplorable in the case of firms with such an outstanding record of service to the Armed Services. If the N.A.A.F.I. does not like Balfrys, why does it not buy them out?
Now the N.A.A.F.I. agrees that Balfrys shall sell newspapers, which the N.A.A.F.I. does not sell anyway and which amounts to 20 per cent. of Balfry's turnover, and tobacco, which amounts to 57 per cent, on last year's figures. On this last item, although it is a concession a weakening by the N.A.A.F.I., Balfrys

know quite well—as does every other tobacconist—that the price control on tobacco is in doubt and, if there are cuts, they will not be able to compete in tobacco. Therefore, this matter is unsettled.
The firm must, therefore, be able to develop other lines if need be. It must be allowed a diversity of trade if it is to find the capital burden of about £10,000 which, after all, at the Army's instigation, it is willing to undertake and which is involved in transferring its premises to the new site and developing it. Even without this consideration, it would be quite indefensible, in equity, for the N.A.A.F.I. to say arbitrarily that this firm or any other must curtail its trade by about 30 per cent.
This would not provide a fair and proper return for the long hours which the two partners put into the business. A newsagent begins his hours much earlier than the ordinary worker and this is a trade which the N.A.A.F.I. cannot offer.
Another factor also comes in, which affects my constituents in Bordon. There are nearly 1,000 civilian workers employed in the Bordon Camp. They go in daily and cannot use the N.A.A.F.I. premises. They depend on Balfry's for their tobacco, sweets, biscuits, tea and coffee and the things they need for their daily "brews-up".
Without Balfrys trading on their present basis, these workers will be deprived of any opportunity to get the things they need for their refreshment during the day. They cannot use the N.A.A.F.I. In their interests, I ask that Balfry's should be allowed to continue the trade which they have given so long to civilians and Army alike. It is disgraceful that, even today, after all these protracted negotiations, Balfry's have not even been allowed to see the draft lease of their new premises, because of the deliberate blocking of the N.A.A.F.I.
Not only should Balfrys be given a lease forthwith, but the whole basis on which these concessions have been given should be altered. Balfry's have been working on the assumption, based on further assurances, and statements in correspondence, that they will get a 99-year lease from the Army, but their concessions to trade are not transferable. Therefore, they cannot create a goodwill


which can be sold, because their concession is terminable at six months' notice.
Balfrys have, in effect, no security of tenure whatever. This has never worried them in the past. Over the years they have learned to like and trust the Army. They have confidence in the Army. They have trusted the Army implicity. Now the Army has no say whatever in these concessions. It is the N.A.A.F.I. which controls concession holders' livelihoods. Balfry's certainly have not very much confidence in the behaviour of the N.A.A.F.I. in their case. I must say that I do not blame them.
I hope very much that, after this debate, the Under-Secretary of State for the Army will get the general manager on a long toasting fork in front of a red hot fire and keep him there for a darned long time. I ask that Balfrys should be given a 99-year lease, as has been promised to them verbally and as has been mentioned in documents from the Army, together with an amended concession which will give them security of tenure and enable them to create the goodwill to which they are entitled so that the senior partner, after the many years of service which she has given to civilians and the Army alike, should be able to retire decently, which I think her long years of service entitle her to do.

12.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I commend the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) for her systematic preparation of the case. I am particularly grateful to her for letting me have a sight of it first. I hope that I shall be able to suggest something which will lead to a solution of this problem. I cannot take responsibility for 37 years of the Army. I do not think that I can manage more than about 37 days. However, I will endeavour to be as helpful as I can.
Messrs. Balfry have provided a very useful service to the Bordon Garrison. I accept that they make this service rather wider than the N.A.A.F.I. can, in the ways the hon. Lady put to me. I hope very much that the hon. Lady's speech and what I have to say will re-cement the good relations which have existed between Balfrys and the Army.
I want to spend a moment or two on the N.A.A.F.I. side of the case. I think that the hon. Lady was a little unfair to N.A.A.F.I. The N.A.A.F.I. is the Services' own trading organisation, providing not only shops but also clubs and social facilities for all three Services. Its obligations are worldwide, whether in a theatre of operations such as Borneo or in the present difficult conditions in Aden. Wherever Service men or their families need shops and clubs, the N.A.A.F.I. is there. The hon. Lady will agree in general terms that N.A.A.F.I. does an excellent job. I expect that she knows a fair amount about the worldwide services provided by N.A.A.F.I. Without the service it provides and the job it does, morale in the Services and in Service families would certainly suffer.
N.A.A.F.I. operates under very difficult trading conditions. It is a non-profit-making organisation. It must balance the losses from its obligations in the difficult and uneconomic areas against trading surpluses elsewhere. It must provide prices and a standard of service comparable with private traders. Its custom has to be confined by and large to Service personnel and a very limited number of civilians.
In the light of these trading conditions and obligations, it is wholly proper that N.A.A.F.I. should be given protection against traders who would otherwise operate on Army Department land. The N.A.A.F.I. cannot pick and choose the cream of the market. A private trader can do that. Unrestricted trade cannot be allowed to private traders on Ministry of Defence land. Once N.A.A.F.I. has undertaken the obligation to provide a range of goods to serve the families in the area, any consequent restriction of trading potential must affect the viability of N.A.A.F.I. and be to the detriment of Service interests. It is, therefore, Service policy to limit private trading on Service land where a N.A.A.F.I. is provided so that N.A.A.F.I. can provide reasonable services.
There are cases which merit special consideration. A trader like Balfrys may have had a trading licence of long-standing—over several years. Its cancellation may cause personal hardship, particularly when the business relies almost entirely on the military trade and provides the firm with its sole means


of livelihood. It is for this reason that we provide for an appeal by the trader against any action by the Army or N.A.A.F.I. which he thinks unfair. In this case there is an appeal to the G.O.C. in-C. of the Command, but Mr. Rickards, the present owner of Balfrys has not yet availed himself of this course of action. I hope that he will.
I come now to the details of this case. A new N.A.A.F.I. has been established at Bordon to provide a much better service for Service families in the area, and it would be most appropriate that any private trading on Service land which is to be continued should be fitted into the general scheme of things.
As the hon. Lady said, this firm has been there for well over 50 years. There have been no complaints at all about its service. The terms of its lease allow the firm to operate as newsagents, tobacconists and confectioners. The present shop and its store constitute the type of temporary structure which seems to outlive us all. It is hoped to remove this as an eyesore and get Messrs. Balfrys—that is, Mr. Rickards—set up in a proper way, in a way which I am sure he will find congenial both as to living conditions and as to shop conditions. I have seen the plans for his proposed shop and bungalow. It seems only proper that he should be given a lease in the same terms and covering the same commodities as are contained in the present lease.
To extend the range of his trading is, however, another matter which is of particular importance to the Services and to N.A.A.F.I. I understand that the firm sells a miscellany of items outside the commodities covered in the lease. I would not intend that this should necessarily cease, but what the commodities are and

the conditions under which they are offered ought to be a matter of agreement between Mr. Rickards, the Service authorities and N.A.A.F.I. I will give the hon. Lady the promise that neither she nor Messrs. Balfrys will find us rigid about this.
What I think is the best course of action—rather than to put precise terms about groceries, for example, in the lease —would be if Mr. Rickards, the Service authorities and the N.A.A.F.I. were to come to some gentlemen's agreement about what Messrs. Balfrys should sell. This would not be within the strict terms of the lease. I am sure that this is possible.
I apologise most sincerely to Messrs. Balfrys and to the hon. Lady for the delays which have taken place. There is really very little excuse for these. If Mr. Rickards will get in touch with the Southern Command and arrange a meeting with N.A.A.F.I. officials and with Southern Command, I am pretty confident that an agreement can be reached which will be satisfactory to N.A.A.F.I., satisfactory to Messrs. Balfrys, and satisfactory to the hon. Lady.

Miss Quennell: May I point out that the Army Land Agent has been trying to get a meeting for just the same reasons as those proposed by the hon. Gentleman, but has failed? May I take it that the hon. Gentleman will encourage N.A.A.F.I. to come to such a meeting?

Mr. Boyden: I think that the words we have spoken today will act as a very considerable encouragement rather than the toasting exercise.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

NEW WRIT

For Nuneaton, in the room of the right hon. Frank Cousins (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. John Silkin.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL (By Order)

Mr. Ogden: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Clerk read the title of the Brighton Marina Bill, I rose in my place and stated my objection. Unfortunately, the Clerk was not looking in my direction, Sir, and neither were you, so that the objection was not registered.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I did not hear his objection. I was not looking but I was listening. My hearing must have been defective. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear. The Second Reading has been deferred.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (CANVEY ISLAND APPROACHES, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

PORT OF LONDON BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the estimated effect upon the prices received by British farmers for livestock if Great Britain were to join the Common Market in existing conditions.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): It is not possible to give precise estimates. Assuming no change in the present E.E.C. arrangements, producer prices for fat cattle, pigs and sheep in the United Kingdom may well be higher than now. The profitability of livestock production would also be affected by the increased prices of animal feeding stuffs resulting from the Community's high cereals prices.

Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if the Government go ahead with their negotiations, the profit margins for livestock producers will at least be maintained at their present level?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman appreciates that we are now conducting a probe into the matter; negotiations have not taken place. I recognise that prices for fatstock could be misleading. As the hon. Gentleman has said, profitability is the important thing, which is what concerns producers, and that would be affected by the cost of feed.

Mr. Biffen: When making these assessments, does the Minister assume that Denmark also will become a member of the Common Market should Britain be successful?

Mr. Peart: I was asked to make an assessment about prices as they are now in the Community. Whether or not there is a larger Community is another matter. The situation may he entirely different. Therefore, one would be indulging only in hypothesis and speculation.

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what


active studies he is making on the implications to the British agricultural industry of joining the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peart: These matters are being kept under continuous study.

Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is most disappointing? If his Department is studying the subject, can he explain the actions of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, sitting behind him, who, in this House and in broadcasts, seems to be leading a campaign to denigrate Britain's entry into the E.E.C.?

Mr. Peart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before I answer that supplementary question, may I ask you whether it is not rather discourteous of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) to attack a Parliamentary Private Secretary who traditionally has not the right to speak on matters affecting his Minister's Department? Is it not a disgraceful thing for the hon. Member to have done?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on courtesy on this point.

Mr. Jopling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the appointment of a Parliamentary Private Secretary is the gift of the Minister, and I imagine that he is responsible to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have many Questions on agriculture today.

Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us take attacks of this kind very seriously. Did the hon. Member for Westmorland give notice to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Private Secretary that he intended to make these slighting remarks?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Walker—Question No. 15.

Mr. Peart: May I answer the supplementary question put to me by the hon. Member for Westmorland? He said that my reply was disappointing, but even in Europe the situation changes from week to week in relation to the Common Market agricultural policy and regulations, and, therefore, it is right to have this continuous study.

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications of joining the European Common Market for horticulture in the Lea Valley.

Mr. Peart: Assuming no change in the present E.E.C. arrangements, our tariffs on imports from the rest of the enlarged Community would in due course be abolished, our imports from non-members would bear the common external tariff, and our domestic production of fruit and vegetables would be subject to the Community's regulations providing for common standards of quality, support-buying for some commodities and aid for setting up growers' co-operatives.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the interests of the Lea Valley horticultural industry will be fully borne in mind in any discussions which take place on the detailed terms of entry? Will he press for the provision of transitional period during which the industry may adapt itself to any new conditions if the decision to enter the Common Market is eventually taken?

Mr. Peart: We are not engaged on negotiations now. The hon. Member should not be too hypothetical on this matter. We are conducting a probe. The horticultural industry could be seriously hit. [Laughter.] I would have thought that hon. Members who jeer now would bear in mind that this might have serious consequences for many honourable people. For that reason we are bearing in mind all the problems.

Mr. John Wells: When he is looking at the details of this, will the right hon. Gentleman particularly bear in mind the apple growing section of the horticultural industry? When it comes to negotiations about apple growing, will he take into account the particular difficulty of Cox's Orange as an apple in the Common Market grading system?

Mr. Peart: Certainly the grading of apples would be a matter which we would have to consider. We are not at that stage. I am merely trying to emphasise the difficulties which the industry would face.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will


give an estimate of the profitability of barley growing if Great Britain were immediately to join the Common Market.

Mr. Pearl: This would depend on the arrangements agreed for barley in an enlarged Community. Assuming no change in the present E.E.C. arrangements, barley growing in this country would be substantially more profitable than now. It is not possible to give a precise estimate, but some very broad indication of the effect on profitability may be inferred from the fact that the Community's target price for 1967–68 is about a third higher than our present guaranteed price.

Mr. Brewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman looking into the effects that this will have upon the livestock rearing industry, and is he making inquiries which lead him to attempt to insulate the price of liquid milk from that in the Common Market?

Mr. Peart: On barley, it is true that this will affect production costs. After all, animal feedingstuffs are important. I recognise this and we will bear it in mind.

Mr. J. T. Price: In the Answer that he has just given, my right hon. Friend has told the House that the price of barley on the Continent and in the Community is about one-third higher than in this country, and that therefore barley production here would be more costly to the consumer. Does this mean that joining the Common Market will put up the price of beer?

Mr. Peart: I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said, it is an interesting comment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I cannot give a precise answer about whether the price of beer will go up on joining the Community.

Agriculture (Output)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average annual net output of British agriculture between the years 1946 and 1966; and what is the average for the years 1965 and 1966.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Figures of

agricultural net output in the United Kingdom are available on a uniform basis from 1953–54 only. The average value at constant prices from 1953–54 to 1965–66 was £750 million. For the last two years of this period, the average was £907 million. This figure is subject to revision at the Annual Review now in progress.

Mr. Marten: Is it not true that, in spite of those figures, the actual rate of expansion is falling significantly behind what was intended, and is not the real answer that farmers should have more profitability, which they could then invest or reinvest in their farms?

Mr. Mackie: Generally, the increases asked for in the National Plan are being carried out, although the figures for pigs are a little lower. The other question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is for the Price Review and I cannot anticipate it.

Broiler Chickens

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what study he has made of the report by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare on the processing of broiler chickens during 1966, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to ensure that broiler chickens are electrically stunned before their throats are cut, and that their immersion in scalding tanks does not take place until they are dead.

Mr. John Mackie: I have read the Federation's report. The Slaughter of Poultry Bill, which is before the House, applies to Great Britain and contains provisions as to the mode of slaughter of poultry for sale for human consumption and as to the making of regulations for securing humane conditions and practices in connection with such slaughter.

Sir Knox Cunningham: In view of the changed conditions as a result of factory farming, do the Government intend to have a new Order to replace the Conveyance of Live Poultry Order, 1919? Secondly, will the Government facilitate the passage of the Slaughter of Poultry


Bill, which was given a Second Reading on 25th November?

Mr. Mackie: The Conveyance of Live Poultry Order, 1919, provides safeguards for the welfare of birds in transit, and we intend to review this Order to see what changes may be desirable. The Bill is due to go into Committee very soon.

Mr. Burden: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the U.F.A.W. report shows that there is very considerable cruelty at present? Second, when the Bill is being considered, will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend give thought to the need for inspection to ensure that regulations regarding slaughter are obeyed?

Mr. Mackie: We shall take note of the point made in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On the first part, I am not sure that it can be proved that there is a great amount of cruelty taking place. I have been through packing stations and have watched the process going on. Admittedly, it is not a very nice sight to see what is going on, but I doubt that there is the cruelty suggested.

Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend assure us that the quality of the broiler chicken equals that of the free-run chicken?

Mr. Mackie: Tastes differ all over the world.

Mr. Rankin: Not taste, quality.

Barley

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to avoid an over-production of barley from the 1967 harvest.

Mr. Peart: It is for the individual farmer to decide on his cropping policy, but I re-emphasised last month the desirability of farmers growing more wheat rather than more barley.

Mr. Stodart: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a considerable problem could arise here in that the output of barley from farms has risen by about 1 million tons in each of the last few years, and the main consuming side, namely, the pig herd, is down owing to lack of confidence in the Government's

policy? Without an export outlet, the barley producer could be in great difficulty. Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an eye on this?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, some of the matters he mentioned in his supplementary question will be discussed at the Annual Price Review. But I deplore the implication that we are about to have over-production. I have said all along that I would like to see farmers growing more wheat than barley, but if we can grow more barley for export I am anxious to encourage it.

Mr. Henry Clark: Will the Minister keep in mind, in the course of his Price Review, that there is no surplus of homegrown barley in Northern Ireland and, in fact, farmers there are paying at least £2 a ton more for their feed than farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Pearl: I always take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Rural Development Boards

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an assurance that he will not use rural development boards as a means of bringing about land nationalisation within their area.

Mr. Peart: The powers that are being given to rural development boards bear no relation to those that would be required for land nationalisation. They will acquire only such land as is necessary for the effective discharge of their functions and will hold it only as long as is necessary for that purpose.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware of the panegyric of praise on nationalisation by his hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on 21st December, when he said that much the best use for land was to nationalise it? Can he say whether the fact that the hon. Gentleman is now a member of the Government is no coincidence?

Mr. Peart: I understand that the hon. Member is a former member of the Liberal Party, which once had land nationalisation in its programme.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend make certain that where farmers


and farming interests want to acquire bigger holdings under the aegis of the rural development boards he will do nothing to impede that pattern being evolved in farming?

Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend appreciates the importance of the boards. We are anxious to secure amalgamations and the development of the hill areas. The boards have been welcomed by the whole industry, and I deplore the sniping from hon. Members opposite.

Disused Railway Lines

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the concern of farmers with regard to the future use of disused railways lines; and what action he will take.

Mr. John Mackie: I have recently received a representation from the National Farmers' Union, which I am looking into.

Mr. Loveys: Is the Minister aware that his reply will do nothing to alleviate the concern of farmers about the problem? May we have a definite assurance that priority will be given to returning disused lines to agriculture where practical, and that in other cases farming interests, such as accommodation works and fencing, will be properly protected?

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member can be assured that my right hon. Friend looks after the interests of farming before anything else.

Brucellosis

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the brucellosis eradication scheme to be introduced; if he will set out a timetable of the programme; and when he expects it to be completed.

Mr. Pearl: I expect to be able to invite applicants to join the scheme in something like two months. It is not possible at present to give a timetable for the whole scheme, or a date by which eradication of the disease will have been completed.

Mr. Kitson: When does the Minister expect to introduce the compulsory slaughter side of the eradication scheme?

Will he bear in mind that it is necessary to be extremely quick with the scheme?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give a date but I hope to make a statement very soon. I have to have consultations. I will keep the House and the hon. Member fully informed, and very soon.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Minister now admit that the disease is far more widespread than he was prepared to admit last mid-summer, is now adversely affecting British exports, is very widespread among the veterinary service, and is doing untold harm to British farming?

Mr. Peart: I have always regarded the problem of brucellosis as very important. I am the first Minister to take action, unlike my predecessors.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is also a considerable health hazard to farmers, farmworkers and their families, and that that is yet another reason for urgent action now?

Mr. Peart: I certainly accept that, and that is why we have decided to introduce the slaughter scheme which I have announced.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Will the Minister examine the matter with even more urgency, because the figures in one report indicate that at least one herd in seven is affected? The right hon Gentleman has probably seen that the herd run by the Farmers' Weekly has already shown 12 animals in one small herd to be affected.

Mr. Peart: I accept what the hon. Member said. The matter is very important and urgent, and I am anx long to complete all my consultations and have the final details of the scheme ready. I shall certainly press as hard as I can to have it introduced.

Marginal and Hill Farmers

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what special consideration is being given within his Department to help marginal and hill farmers; and which of the production grants at present being paid to hill farmers will continue in the event of Great Britain joining the Common Market.

Mr. Peart: Our long-term proposals for helping farmers in these areas are contained in the Agriculture Bill; for example, hill land improvement grants, live stock subsidies and rural development boards.
The answer to the second part of the Question would depend on the arrangements agreed for an enlarged Community. The E.E.C. has not yet decided on the criteria for judging which state aids to agriculture should or should not be regarded as compatible with the Common Market.

Mr. Kitson: Could the Minister say which of the production grants he thinks we should keep? I think he will agree that the problem is very considerable for the hill areas, and needs considerable special thought before the negotiations go much further.

Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir, I agree. I am certain that the hon. Member has carefully looked at Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome, but as yet no criteria have been laid down by the Community. If we did decide, I accept that this would be a serious matter.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is no certainty that any of the production grants will be continued after entry into the European Economic Community, and that the uncertainty on that score should be dispelled as soon as possible by spelling out the minimum agricultural conditions for Britain's entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is right to stress that we do not know, and that no final decision has been taken, about the regulations that affect the specific matter of aid for the areas mentioned. I would remind my hon. Friend that we are not negotiating now; we are merely probing.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are very real fears among the hill farmers on the matter, and clearly state that nothing in the Treaty of Rome would stop the sort of grant mentioned as long as there is agreement within the Community?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member joined in what I thought was a common view in the House, that the hill farmers are

concerned about the matter, and naturally it is one of the questions we must consider. That is why I have always said that the probe is the right approach.

Food Additives and Contaminants (Research)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research laboratory resources are available to the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee and the Pharmacology Sub-Committee to enable these committees to give authoritative advice on matters relating to food additives and contaminants.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): These committees do not carry out research. Their members are chosen for their ability to give authoritative advice based on their knowledge of the relevant research and on their evaluation of the evidence.

Mr. Hall: Is it not a fact that the Committees frequently ask other laboratories, notably the British Industrial Biological Research Association, to carry out a great deal of research for them, and if so, should they not be represented on the Committees?

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir, I do not think so. It is true that the Committees do ask certain organisations to carry out research work; but the Committees are representative not of organisations, but of the best people to give advice.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate an inquiry into how the balance of payments position of this country could be strengthened by an expansion in British agriculture.

Mr. Peart: The selective expansion programme was drawn up in the light of a full inquiry into the contribution which agriculture could best make to the national economy. The Government have since made it clear that the present economic situation underlines the importance of the programme. I am now considering at the Annual Review the industry's progress towards the objectives of the programme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that his policies do not convince the farming community that he himself is convinced that agriculture can contribute to the balance of payments? Would he not, therefore, think that such an inquiry would be valuable if only, perhaps, to educate himself?

Mr. Peart: I am convinced about the value of import savings, and the importance of the selective expansion programme. I am only sorry that hon. Members opposite are not as yet convinced of the importance of having a long-term programme which goes to 1970.

Mr. Stodart: Does the Minister recall his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying that we shall not solve our balance of payments problems without a vigorous import substitution through increased agricultural production? Where is the evidence of the vigour of that expansion, particularly when he considers today's import figures?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must appreciate that the selective expansion programme is the Government's policy and has been accepted by the industry. The Annual Review is the machinery whereby we assess progress and what shall be done.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not worth noting at this point in the negotiations that our gold and dollar reserves now stand at about £1,760 million, and those in France and Italy measure about £2,760 million?

Mr. Peart: We are not involved in the kind of negotiations my hon. Friend mentioned. He will appreciate that in the annual review discussions I take note of every economic factor.

Seals (Farne Islands)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if seals will be culled on the Farne Islands in 1967.

Mr. Peart: I am discussing this matter with the National Trust.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that the damage to fishing on the East Coast of Scotland is estimated to be over £50,000 a year and that the scientific evidence is that the seals

come from the Fame Islands? Will he take account of the interests of the fishing industry and consider this matter very seriously?

Mr. Peart: I already do so. I have been attacked for taking the same point of view as the hon. Gentleman on many occasions on this matter. I am glad of his support. But he will appreciate that I have no power to compel the National Trust to give its permission. The Trust owns the Farne Islands and it is better to try and get its co-operation.

Mr. Burden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that although there may be damage for the fishing industry, we do not want to see culling become a yearly habit without real cause, and that very careful consideration should be given before it is allowed?

Mr. Peart: That is precisely the policy I have followed since I became Minister. We have carefully assessed the damage and the scientific evidence to try and balance all these factors.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great body of opinion is against the slaughter of baby seals in the way that it has been going on? Many people are afraid that it may reach what can only be described as indiscriminate slaughter. Will my right hon. Friend be very careful in assessing what should be allowed?

Mr. Peart: I am always very careful and try to assess this matter impartially and independently. The animal welfare interests have to be considered and I take note of what my hon. Friend says. On the other hand, as Fisheries Minister, I recognise the problems of the fishing industry as well.

Price Review (Negotiations)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether the Government's present period of severe restraint on the economy will be applied to all sections of the agricultural industry during the present Price Review negotiations.

Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on 14th December. [Vol. 738, c. 442–3.]

Mr. Jopling: In view of the bad time that farmers have had and the rumours rampant in the industry, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any price increases granted by the Annual Price Review will not be held over until the end of the period of severe restraint?

Mr. Peart: I am not responsible for rumours but only for conducting the negotiations, which I will do objectively and sensibly.

Cocoa (Price)

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average price per cwt. of cocoa on the London market during each of the years 1966, 1965, 1964 and 1963.

Mr. Hoy: The average spot price per cwt. of Ghana cocoa on the London market was: 1963 208s.; 1964 191s.; 1965 141s.; 1966 196s.

Mr. Walker: Why is it that, even though cocoa prices fluctuate up and down, chocolate prices only go up? Does my hon. Friend recall that the alleged increase in cocoa prices was used on 23rd January as justification for allowing an increase in chocolate and confectionery prices? Do not the figures he has given make it abundantly clear that, over the period concerned, there has been stability or an average fall? Will he look at this with a view to reversing that decision?

Mr. Hoy: I regret to say that my hon. Friend is wrong. There was a fall in the price of chocolate when the price of cocoa fell. We took the matter up with the people concerned and a price reduction took place. As the prices over the period in question varied between 208s. and 141s., one can hardly regard that as stable.

Chocolate and Sugar Confectionery (Prices)

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which particular taxes had, by their increase, been responsible for the rise in prices of chocolate and sugar confectionery.

Mr. Hoy: The taxation increases which were partly responsible for the rise in these prices were the increase in Purchase

Tax on chocolate and sugar confectionery on 20th July and, so far as it could not be absorbed, the introduction of Selective Employment Tax on distributive workers on 5th September.

Mr. Walker: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that the manufacturers should now be benefiting substantially from the refund and premiums from the Selective Employment Tax and, furthermore, should have benefited from the termination of the import surcharge? Is he not aware that the leading manufacturers have enjoyed large and increasing profits and that it seems unfair to a great many people that these charges should be passed on to the consumer?

Mr. Hoy: I assure my hon. Friend that these matters were taken into account and that, before approval was given, the firms supplied comprehensive statements about their economic position. It was only as a result of that that my right hon. Friend agreed to take the steps that he did.

Mr. Henry Clark: In view of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), will the Minister consider taking action to prohibit television advertising of chocolate?

Mr. Hoy: That certainly does not arise from the Question.

Mr. Maddan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the increases in confectionery prices, authorised by him on 23rd January, do not exceed on average the 3 per cent. level referred to in the statement issued by his Department on the same date.

Mr. Peart: In our discussions with the manufacturers concerned, the precise price increase or weight reduction for each line affected was notified to me. I am satisfied that these changes will not be exceeded. The figure of 3 per cent. is our estimate of the overall effect of the agreed increases across the whole industry.

Mr. Maddan: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather stupid to have a compulsory prices policy when he does not activate the Weights and Measures Inspectorate to check that it is being enforced?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member knows that I met the manufacturers on this and they agreed with me that we should proceed in this way. I have every confidence in their integrity. It is important to have voluntary co-operation. This increase was right within the criteria of the White Paper.

Lime

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual tonnage of lime in all forms used on farms for the last four years; and if he will make a statement on present trends.

Mr. Henry Clark: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has given consideration to the sharp fall in the use of lime by farmers both before and since the recent cut in subsidy rates; and what steps he proposes to take to reverse this trend.

Mr. John Mackie: United Kingdom farmers were paid subsidy on 5·6 million tons of lime in 1963, 5·2 million tons in 1964, 5·9 million tons in 1965 and just over 5 million tons in 1966. Liming of land normally takes place at intervals of some three to four years or more, and the total application in any one year will be influenced by climatic and other conditions. I regard the amount of lime used over the last four years as being in total adequate for soil needs in that period. The importance of liming and the maintenance of soil fertility, I am sure, are well understood by farmers who, of course, receive the practical encouragement of a subsidy which on average at present rates meets nearly half their costs.

Mr. Mills: Does this not show that there is an alarming trend in lime application, which is one million tons down this year? Is this not also true of fertiliser? Does it not show that farmers are having to rob the soil of fertility in not using this lime?

Mr. Mackie: The quick answer is, "No". Liming varies over the years. In the past, it has been used to bring up the lime quantity of the soil, and present liming is to maintain it. The amount used does vary from year to year—it was 5·9 million tons in 1965 and only 5·2 million tons the year before. The hon.

Gentleman will see the variation there. I am afraid that his point is not very well taken.

Mr. Henry Clark: But liming is a long-term policy and full action in the soil does not take place for several years. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the present period of restricted profits is the very worst time to cut the lime subsidy? Without it, the farmer has every incentive to cut out lime for a year or two to try and get a little profit.

Mr. Mackie: I do not necessarily agree. I know that lime naturally takes a few years to operate but the figures show that there is no real decrease in liming. [HON. MEMBERS: "25 per cent."] I do not agree that the figures show that there has been a real decrease in liming.

Mr. Stodart: Does not the hon. Gentleman manage to see the coincidence at least? May a drop in the use of lime of between 15 and 25 per cent., together with a drop in the use of fertilisers in the same year, not have something to do with the present financial stringency, in that people are hedging on these purchases?

Mr. Mackie: I never had a great belief in coincidences.

Soil Fertility

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the level of soil fertility of farms; and what plans he has to encourage farmers to maintain a high degree of soil fertility.

Mr. John Mackie: I am satisfied that generally with the various measures of Governmental assistance and advice that are available, farmers are maintaining their land in a satisfactory state of fertility. The majority of our farming grants and subsidies are considered each year at the Annual Price Review, and the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of this year's Review.

Mr. Mills: But surely the Minister must realise that this loss of fertility is due to poor prices and farmers cannot put back this fertility? Will he give some encouragement in the coming Price Review to break the cereal cycle by giving


increased prices for beans and other similar crops?

Mr. Mackie: What the hon. Gentleman says is being taken into account in the present negotiations.

Salmon Disease (Solway Rivers)

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in identifying the disease affecting salmon in the Solway rivers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: The external symptoms are similar to those shown by infected salmon in Irish rivers, where the disease was first noted, but it has not proved possible so far to isolate and identify the precise form of organism which is responsible.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that the disease has now been prevalent in the British Isles for over a year? Is he quite satisfied that sufficient money and manpower have been put into research and eradication?

Mr. Hoy: The disease has been present for quite a long time. Despite the best research work that has been done, the cause has not yet been found. We hope to fill a new post for a fish pathologist to intensify our work in this respect.

Mr. Brewis: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is a cure on the horizon?

Mr. Hoy: No. Until we find out the cause, we shall not find the cure.

Mr. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend tell us whether the research inquiries are being co-ordinated? I understand there have been a number of different researches, which has led to some confusion.

Mr. Hoy: I can assure my hon. Friend that the research work is being co-ordinated, not only among research workers in our own country, but also among those in Ireland, America and elsewhere.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his inquiries into the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth dis-

ease in Northumberland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pearl: I placed in the Library on 3rd February a report on the diagnosis of the initial outbreaks. My inquiries into slaughtering procedure are nearly complete and I shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that the British public views the allegations of great cruelty in the slaughter of these unfortunate animals as a reflection on the Minister? Will he hold a public inquiry, which on 15th November he refused?

Mr. Peart: I think the hon. Member is exaggerating the matter. I said I would look into the allegations, I will make a statement, certainly. I gave that promise.

Viscount Lambton: Would the Minister not agree that he is now holding an inquiry? If he is holding one in private, as stated by the Under-Secretary in the House of Lords, what are the arguments against holding it in public?

Mr. Peart: I have announced that I would hold this inquiry. The National Farmers' Union too, is involved in this and has been making investigations. As soon as I have completed all my inquiries, I will make a statement and lay all the material before the House. We are conducting other inquiries affecting other matters, but I believe that this is the right procedure for inquiring into the allegations of cruelty.

Mr. Stodart: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the fact that we appreciate the difficulty of slaughtering as efficiently and humanely on individual farms as in fully equipped slaughterhouses? In view of the allegations which have been made, with names attached to them, in the newspapers, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be for the good of his own Department if the inquiry were held not only publicly but by an independent assessor?

Mr. Peart: I have said that there had been allegations of cruelty. I think there have been exaggerations. Nevertheless, I have asked my Department to look into this. Added to that, there is a special


investigation which has been held by a county branch of the National Farmers' Union. The N.F.U. headquarters are looking into this. All this I will consider. I will examine the information and, as I have said. I will make a statement to the House and inform the House fully of what I have found.

Mr. Manuel: Can my right hon. Friend indicate to the House that there is a very complete and close liaison with the Secretary of State for Scotland in connection with this matter? Can he further indicate what watch is being kept on our main Scottish rivers, and the English rivers, in order to avoid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong question."]——

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Would the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that those of us who come from the area concerned recognise that there is an obvious outlet for exaggeration in circumstances of this sort, but that some of these complaints have come from most responsible people? Does he not agree that it is only reasonable that we should have a full public inquiry into these strong allegations?

Mr. Peart: I have said that I would make a statement. It is true that responsible people have praised the work which has been done to combat very effectively, under difficult circumstances, an outbreak which could have extended even further. I am glad that tribute has been paid to the veterinary officers and others concerned. Where there have been cases of cruelty, I have said that I would add a specific inquiry. I have announced that I will make a statement to the House.

Dame Irene Ward: Can I have a go?

Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to make a statement. This is, of course, as it should be. But particularly as the National Farmers' Union has shown a slight reluctance to publish certain parts of its report, does he not realise that this adds to the slight concern about the matter and that a statement is not enough—that we should have an independent inquiry for everyone's benefit?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should wait for my statement. He asked me to make it. I said I would, and I will do so.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this would be a case to send to the Parliamentary Commissioner, or have his powers been so clipped that he would not be able to inquire into it? I think it would be a jolly good idea. We would then get an independent inquiry.

Mr. Peart: I am sure that the Ombudsman would not be the person to conduct this inquiry. The hon. Lady, whom I respect, is wrong on this occasion. I will make a statement and I hope she will listen to the statement when I make it.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost to public funds of the recent series of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. John Mackie: All payments have not yet been made, but compensation for animals slaughtered in outbreaks since July, 1966, paid, or to be paid, amounts to £1,217,667. Costs of disposal of car-cases, disinfection, and other compensatory payments are estimated at £140,000 and valuers' fees at £9,000.

Mr. Digby: I accept that this distressing policy of slaughter is probably the best, but can the Parliamentary Secretary say how the cost of this outbreak is likely to compare with the cost of earlier outbreaks?

Mr. Mackie: I could not give the figures for particular outbreaks without notice, but in 1957–58 the total cost was £1,573,000 and in 1960–61 it was £2,644,000.

Food (Labelling)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he now has for ensuring the better labelling of food.

Mr. Hoy: We are considering this matter in the light of the representations which have been received from interested parties and the discussions which we have had with them on the proposals which were issued in September, 1965. Regulations will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Longden: What is the reason for the apparent difficulty and undoubted delay in requiring manufacturers to describe the contents of their products accurately


and completely on the wrapping? If the Government have no better proposals of their own, will they give facilities for the Private Member's Bill which is now before the House?

Mr. Hoy: More than 7,000 copies of the proposals were issued, and we received 300 major representations on them. Obviously, one had to have meetings with many of the people concerned; but I hope it will not be too long before regulations will be before the House.

Food Production

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the long-term ability of British agriculture to maintain and extend the proportion of food produced at home in Great Britain, in view of recent estimates of the expected increase in population by the end of the century.

Mr. Peart: Any statement about the end of the century must be speculative. Under the selective expansion programme home agriculture is expected to meet a major part of the additional demand for food by 1970, and I believe it should be well within the capacity of the industry to make a similar contribution in the longer term.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of the expected increase in world population during that period, it will become necessary—I believe that it already is—for Britain to plan to produce a large proportion of her food at home as a contribution to relieving the ever-increasing demand on world food supplies?

Mr. Peart: We certainly accept that, and that is why we envisage a selective expansion programme until 1970. I recognise that the industry can make an even further contribution beyond that.

Mr. Jopling: In view of the danger to the Treasury of increasing agricultural production at home, would the right hon. Gentleman consider changing to a system of levies, a system which would be much more satisfactory?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must recognise his fanaticism for his own party's levy system, which would impose hardship on the consumer. I hope that he will bear that in mind.

Milk

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to increase the supply of fresh milk for consumption and for manufacture.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of the Annual Price Review. Production is already more than sufficient to meet the needs of the liquid market. As regards manufacturing requirements, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on 2nd November last.—[Vol. 735, c. 431.]

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most unsatisfactory Answer? Is he aware that in recent months the amount of milk going to manufacture has been very largely for cheese making and other products? Is he aware that the policy of the Government is having an adverse effect on calf rearing for beef? Why do the Government take an interest in agriculture only at times of general elections and not between?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must know that it was his party which produced a Price Review to try to bribe the electors at a previous election. When I assess the requirements of agriculture I assess them objectively and not in a partisan spirit.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend tell us why, if there is sufficient production of milk in England, England is importing milk from Scotland?

Mr. Peart: As a Border man, I am always ready to welcome Scottish exports.

Agricultural Land (Reservoirs)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy with regard to the flooding of good agricultural land for reservoirs.

Mr. John Mackie: The Government's policy is that good agricultural land should not be used for reservoirs if practicable alternatives are available without disproportionate cost.

Mr. Digby: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the grave concern of Dorset farmers that a large area of excellent agricultural land is due to be flooded and of the rumours that other areas will follow, even in a rural county like Dorset?

Mr. Mackie: Being a farmer, I naturally appreciate the concern of farmers about these areas, but consideration of the areas which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is only in the preliminary stage and we will come into the picture later when the proposals are more advanced. We will certainly consider them very carefully indeed.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a similar large area of agricultural land, possibly covering about 50 farms, is to be taken over in my constituency unless something is done about it fairly smartly? What is his policy about that?

Mr. Mackie: Hon. Members must appreciate that, although agriculture has considerable importance to this country, we are a country of about 54 million people who require water for all sorts of purposes, and we have to make some arrangements for its supply. The Ministry looks carefully at all the proposals, and unless the cost of alternatives is disproportionate, we naturally fight those involving good agricultural land.

Eggs

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the number of eggs that will be imported into the United Kingdom in 1967.

Mr. Hoy: It is not possible to make precise estimates but I have no reason to expect that imports of shell eggs will significantly differ from recent years when they have represented less than 2 per cent. of total supplies.

Mr. Body: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in earlier years they have come in at higher prices whereas this time they are being dumped on our shores and that many egg producers will go out of business unless something is done about it?

Mr. Hoy: I do not think so. It is true that in January of this year the throughput of the Board was 7½ per cent.

greater than last year. What we want is a better sale of eggs.

Mr. Bessell: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the 2 per cent. is likely to be imported from Poland and other Iron Curtain countries?

Mr. Hoy: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question asking about the shares, I will give the figures; but normally imports are running at about 1·7 to 1·8 per cent. of our total egg supplies.

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to prevent the sale of eggs that are seconds by retailers at three to four times the price paid to producers.

Mr. Hoy: Second-quality eggs are no longer available for retail sale.

Mr. Davidson: I realise that they are no longer available on these terms, but they were in December, as the Minister knows. Is the Minister aware that they were on the market at a price greatly in excess of that which the producers received? Would he not agree that the law of supply and demand should be allowed to operate and that the producers should receive any benefit during a time of shortage? Is the Minister aware that the producers were receiving about a quarter of the price that the eggs were realising on the market?

Mr. Hoy: Strangely enough, at the end of the year there was a shortage of eggs. The Board—and it must be remembered that marketing is the responsibility of the Board, and not of the Ministry—allowed second-quality eggs to go on the market to meet demand. This lasted for only four weeks, and then the scheme was withdrawn.

Fishing Vessels (Grants)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether all the arrangements regarding the investment incentive grants now available for new fishing vessels have now been made clear to the fishing industry.

Mr. Hoy: The arrangements have already been announced and the scheme giving effect to them was laid before Parliament today.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that if competitive tendering is abolished, it is very hard to see what protection there will be against the exploitation of increased grants by the Government against the interests of the fishermen? How does he propose to deal with that problem?

Mr. Hoy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter has been under discussion for a long time. We are reviewing what the procedure should be and I would prefer not to make a statement until the review is complete.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that there has been a considerable delay in publishing this scheme? Does the White Paper specify the circumstances in which the grants can be measured and when they will be paid?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, the White Paper gives that information. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that grants are still available under existing schemes, and that the new scheme is retrospective to 17th January this year, so nothing has been lost.

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend accept that the introduction of this new scheme will be welcome? Can he give some indication when his Ministry will comment on the evidence and conclusions of the Estimates Committee about the uses and abuses of subsidies for fishing vessels?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, that is exactly what I was saying in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. WolrigeGordon). The Estimates Committee has reported in the last few weeks on various aspects of the industry, and it is right that the industry should consider what the Estimates Committee has said. We, too, will be giving it consideration in the course of the review which we are now making.

Farmers (Incomes)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to provide some form of general income assurance for British agriculture linked with selective commodity assurances.

Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 1st February.—[Vol. 740, c. 105.]

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year was absolutely disastrous for farmers, particularly in the north of Scotland? Is he aware that confidence in him and his Government and in the future is absolutely essential if the industry is to progress? What is he to do about it?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we are now in the middle of the Annual Review and it would be wrong for me to comment on our discussions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is how we decide these things.

Pigs

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the size of the national pig herd is increasing.

Mr. Hoy: Between September and December the pig breeding herd in the United Kingdom fell by about 2,000, but the seasonal decline is normally greater. The January pig sample, for England and Wales only, showed an increase of 2,000 on the December figure.

Mr. Body: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there will be a need for a further 12 million pigs in the country soon? Will he do anything to contain that figure once it is reached, instead of letting it fall again?

Mr. Hoy: My right hon. Friend made a statement earlier about certain proposals with regard to the pig industry. The question of what will take place at the Annual Review is something that I dare not anticipate.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that what needs to be spelled out very clearly for the pig industry is confidence? Will the Minister show this confidence clearly at the Price Review, otherwise we shall see more and more of our industry being surrendered to the Danes?

Mr. Hoy: I agree that it is always better to have confidence, and I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman when, in the course of the Bill upstairs, he said that


he thought there might be faults on both sides and not just on the Government side.

Flood Prevention (Bomere Heath, Shropshire)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that a danger of flooding still exists at the school development in Bomere Heath, Shropshire; what steps he is taking to ensure that grant and loan sanction will be agreed quickly; and when he expects that work will start on phase two of the flood prevention scheme.

Mr. John Mackie: We are aware of the danger of flooding to about six houses on the school development estate at Bomere Heath. As the hon. Member will know, phase one of this scheme has already been completed. My right hon. Friend is ready to approve grant aid and authorise loan sanction for the remaining part of the work as soon as the council submits technically satisfactory proposals. We understand that the council expects work on phase two of the scheme to start during April.

Farms (Compulsory Purchase Orders)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how far it will be his policy under Clause 26 of the Agriculture Bill to authorise lump sum compensation, in addition to compensation provided for in the Land Compensation Act, 1961, and the Compulsory Purchase Act, 1965, to tenant farmers whose boundaries are adjusted or whose unit-size is adversely affected as a result of a compulsory purchase order for development purposes, such as road building.

Mr. John Mackie: Clause 26 of the Agriculture Bill deals with grants for farm amalgamations and provides no powers to pay compensation to farmers displaced by compulsory purchase.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that the present system of compensation is quite inadequate for a man who has lost, perhaps not only his livelihood, but his way of life, as a result of the operation of such an Order?

Mr. Mackie: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will

be making a statement on this, which has nothing to do with Clause 26, very soon.

Ulster Farmers (Grants)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the light of the effects of the Anglo-Eire Agreement on agriculture in Ulster, he will seek forthwith to arrange for special grants to be made through the Ministry of Agriculture of Northern Ireland to Ulster farmers.

Mr. Peart: I do not accept that the Anglo-Eire Free Trade Area Agreement has had the damaging effects that the hon. and learned Member suggests.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than £10 million annually is being pumped into Eire agriculture under the Anglo-Eire Trade Agreement? Is he further aware that this is having a serious effect upon Ulster farmers, particularly upon the dead meat trade? Does he also realise that they object to paying money as United Kingdom taxpayers and seeing it being used by Eire in this way?

Mr. Peart: I am not aware of what the hon. and learned Member has said. The hon. Member is misunderstanding the Agreement and the purpose behind it. The Agreement has only been in operation for seven months. Hon. Members opposite did not object to it. I have said this repeatedly: hon. Members opposite acquiesced.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country subsidises the whole community in Northern Ireland, and that this Agreement is for the benefit of people within Eire and the United Kingdom?

Mr. Peart: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right in the sense that the guarantee system operates in Northern Ireland, and I increased the Northern Ireland remoteness grant at last year's Review. The hon. Member is wrong in what he says because the problems he mentions are not affected by the Agreement.

Mr. Stodart: Although the right hon. Gentleman says that we on this side did not oppose the Agreement, does he recall the considerable reservations which my


right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) expressed at the time, and which were overborne by the assurance of the Prime Minister that the Agreement would not in any way harm or prejudice the position of our own farmers? Does he hold to that position today?

Mr. Peart: Hon. Members opposite did not oppose the Anglo-Eire Agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] They did not put forward any serious argument about reservations. The Agreement will not harm our home producers or Northern Ireland.

Sir Knox Cunningham: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at an early date.

Covent Garden Market Authority

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is now the target date for the opening by the Covent Garden Market Authority of the new market at Nine Elms; and what decision has been made about the development of the present site.

Mr. Hoy: It has not been decided when, apart from preliminary planning, work on the new market may start and accordingly no date for its opening can yet be given. The future of the Covent Garden area is a matter for the planning authorities.

Mr. Hall: Does the Minister recollect that originally there was a statutory duty laid upon the Covent Garden Market Authority to have this market open by 1968, and that this was later extended to 1971? Would he ask his right hon. Friend to devote the same degree of urgency to the opening of this market as he attempted to use when he was sitting on this side of the House?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman will he aware that this was deferred on 20th July last year. The preliminary planning is still going on and the Covent Garden Market Authority is being authorised to make certain purchases of land at Nine Elms in the financial years 1966–67 and 1967–68.

Mr. John Wells: Has the hon. Member seen the early-day Motion No. 173 in

the names of myself and many of my hon. Friends, urging that the preliminary work should be carried on despite the 20th July hold up? Can he give any report of how these preliminary works are getting on?

Mr. Hoy: As I have just intimated, preliminary planning is still going on, and authorisations have been given to the Authority to make purchases in 1966–67 and 1967–68.

Fish Farms

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what fish farms have been established under his authority; and if he will indicate their location and extent and the growth of each since each was established;
(2) if he is aware that warm water from one of Great Britain's nuclear generating stations has enabled research workers to rear and increase the size and weight of young fish to maturity in a fraction of the normal time; and if he will take steps to apply this scientific discovery to fish being reared at Her Majesty's Government fish farms and report the results to the House.

Mr. Hoy: The effect of warm water is one of the matters being studied in the experimental work on fish rearing carried out by the White Fish Authority with assistance from this Department.
The only fish farm under our control is a small hatchery for rearing salmon smolts at Axminster which was set up in 1964. The use of heated water would not be suitable for this purpose.

Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that elaborate reply. Do these fish farms engage in experimental work? If so, would my hon. Friend ensure that that work is extended as it is of great value to fish consumers and the fishing industry?

Mr. Hoy: We do not propose any extension at the moment. Small plaice are being reared at the Authority's laboratory in the Isle of Man and grown in an enclosed loch at Ardtoe in Scotland. The effects of warm water from power stations on young fish are being studied at Carmarthen Bay and


Hunterston in Scotland. We would prefer to have more time to study the outcome of these researches.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it a fact that cold weather and cold water tend to spread this new salmon disease?

Mr. Hoy: That is rather wide of this Question, but what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is correct.

Mr. James Johnson: Would my hon. Friend say what work he is doing to ensure that this information is disseminated overseas, particularly in underdeveloped territories where fish as a source of protein are of enormous value in the food diet?

Mr. Hoy: At the international conferences our scientists and research workers make this information available. I am happy to say that there is a great interchange of research work, and I am convinced that it is well known to the people concerned.

LESLIE PARKES (RELEASE FROM CUSTODY)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the case of Mr. Leslie Parkes.
After considering all the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Mr. Parkes last week, I have come to the conclusion that he should be released from custody. His commanding officer has dismissed the charge of desertion made against him.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I appreciate and warmly welcome his statement about the freeing of my constituent? Consequently, the application for the writ of habeas corpus which was prepared this morning will not now be made. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that this case has caused grave misgivings about the conduct, attitudes and practices of some Army and police officers, although I should deplore any general condemnation of the Army or of the police? Will my right hon. Friend please consult the Home Secretary with a view to ascertaining of what kind of iceberg the Parkes' case is the tip?

Mr. Healey: Let me say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has handled his part in the case. It is a model of what a Member of Parliament can do for a constituent in certain circumstances.
On the broader questions which my hon. Friend raised, I can assure him that this case is quite unique in the experience of my Department and of the Home Office. I have been able to find no case which is a precedent. There are certainly aspects of the case and of the handling of the case which require consideration by myself in so far as they affect the action of military authorities and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, by himself in so far as action of the police is concerned. All these matters will be considered and, if necessary, the appropriate action will be taken.

Mr. Powell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three brief questions? How could Mr. Parkes be kept in custody if the charge against him has been dismissed? Secondly, is Mr. Parkes now a civilian or a soldier? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of his announcement, reaffirm the undertaking of an inquiry on the military side into the circumstances of the arrest and the reasons for the delay given on Monday?

Mr. Healey: On the first question, I should tell the House that Mr. Parkes was released from custody at 3.30 this afternoon, the point at which the charge against him was removed after I had considered the case. On the question of whether he is a civilian, because steps have been taken, the Army has wiped the slate clean, and if he wishes to have his discharge papers he can have them. He is now a civilian. On the third question, certainly I am inquiring into those aspects of the case which require consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement is very welcome to those who thought that an act of injustice had been done to a British citizen? However, if he suggests, probably quite rightly, that there are special aspects of this case, would it not be better in all the circumstances to disclose all the facts? Will he bear in mind that, whatever criticism we have to make, it is' no criticism of the Army, because we recognise that discipline is essential?

Mr. Healey: Yes, I certainly recognise that.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the very least that could have been expected in this case? May I ask him, first, what guarantee there is that in future the military will not ride roughshod over the civil courts? Secondly, is he aware that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army misinformed himself about the position on footnote No. 7 in the Army Act and the right to bail in those cases? Thirdly, do we take it that this is a case of mistaken identity, or has the Army merely given up hope? Fourthly, will this man be entitled to damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, and what guarantee is there that this shameful episode will not occur again?

Mr. Healey: On the first question, I cannot accept that the Army rode rough-shod over a decision of the civil courts. I think that those who have had an opportunity to consider this matter will be able to accept that fact. On the second question, the footnote to which my hon. Friend referred on Monday has stood for many years in the Manual of Military Law as expressing the opinion of military lawyers, and it does not appear to have been challenged. It is not, however, part of the Act itself, and my hon. Friend regrets if, on Monday, he gave the impression that it was. On the question of damages, it is, of course, perfectly open to Mr. Parkes to sue for damages if he wishes to do so. That is a matter for him.

Mr. Thorpe: Would it not be better if an ex gratia payment were made?

Mr. Healey: In all the circumstances of the case, this is not required.

Mr. English: In the inquiry promised by my right hon. Friend, will he include the statement reported in the Press, and not denied by his Ministry, that an Army spokesman said that Mr. Parkes was being treated as a criminal because in the eyes of the Army he "is" a criminal before he had been tried?

Mr. Healey: I shall certainly inquire into that aspect.

Sir A. V. Harvey: As a result of this case, would the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to all three Services

that in future no man on a similar charge should be treated in this savage manner, with manacles, and allowed to be photographed on television? What chance has this man got of getting a job? If he is not prepared to consider damages, in view of the Army's seven months' wait, will the right hon. Gentleman give the man seven months' pay, to which he is entitled?

Mr. Healey: There are many aspects of this affair into which I have already instituted inquiries, but I must point out that it was not by the wish of the Army authorities that any photographs were taken of this man.

Mr. Driberg: Would my right hon. Friend clarify his answer to the second question asked by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—whether this man is now a soldier or a civilian? My right hon. Friend said something about "wiping the slate clean." Does this mean that the man was regarded as a soldier up to 3.30 this afternoon, or what?

Mr. Healey: Yes, of course, he was regarded as a soldier up to 3.30 this afternoon. This was why he was arrested on Friday. But he is now a civilian.

Hon. Members: How.

Mr. Powell: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's last answer but one, is he to investigate the circumstances in which Press photographers and others obtained admission to War Department property?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir; indeed, I have already had a report on this matter.

Sir C. Osborn: Tell us about it.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will the Minister say on what grounds and by whose authority Mr. Parkes was kept in handcuffs from the time of his arrest by the military police for the greater part of the time he was in custody?

Mr. Healey: This is a matter into which I am inquiring.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As the Minister has said that this case is unique, will he clarify the status of Mr. Parkes as to whether he is now a free and independent citizen without any blemish?

Mr. Healey: I thought I made it clear that, so far as the Army is concerned, the slate is clean and Mr. Parkes is no longer a member of Her Majesty's Services.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What are the contents of the report which the right hon. Gentleman has received about access by photographers to War Department property?

Mr. Healey: I think I am justified in going so far as to say that there was a large number of Press men at the gates of the Army barracks concerned and it would have been impossible to prevent them having access without the use of a degree of force which the local commander considered inappropriate.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does not this remarkable case indicate quite dramatically that so long as hon. Members of this House carry out their duties as zealously and conscientiously as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in this case, there will not be much need for an Ombudsman in this country?

Mr. Healey: I certainly cannot imagine any Ombudsman performing his duties more effectively or expeditiously than my hon. Friend did on this occasion.

Sir J. Hobson: Could the Secretary of State say whether he decided that the charge should be dismissed and the commanding officer observed his direction, or was no evidence offered against this man? Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify now whether commanding officers in discharging their statutory duties of trying soldiers will do so under the direction of the Executive?

Mr. Healey: I think that on reflection, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes into account the point made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) yesterday, he will realise that that was not a helpful question in the circumstances.

Mr. Concannon: Could my right hon. Friend explain just what Mr. Parkes has been living on for the last seven months, because in my experience without having any demobilisation papers he might have been unable to be employed as a civilian?

Mr. Healey: That is not my concern.

Sir F. Maclean: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the usual practice is in regard to handcuffing prisoners?

Mr. Healey: I think I am right in saying that prisoners are handcuffed if there is reason to believe that they may be violent when in custody.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend insisting that Mr. Parkes was indeed a deserter?

Mr. Healey: I think the House must understand that I took account of all the circumstances relevant to this case when I reached my conclusion. None of the circumstances by itself would have justified the conclusion I reached, but taken together in combination they did.

Mr. Carlisle: Reverting to the question asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party, surely the real issue is that the military police would not have power to arrest this man unless he was subject to military law. Since the matter having been taken to a civil court and that court having found that he was not subject to military law, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that the police were not riding roughshod over civilian courts?

Mr. Healey: At the time when the court of summary jurisdiction considered this matter under procedures allowed for in Section 186 of the Army Act, and considered the application of the police to hand this man over to the military authorities, he was regarded as a deserter. It was not so satisfied and this was the only decision the court had to take. This was in no sense a judicial decision; it was a decision of whether or not there was a case to go for justice. It is always open in civil or military law to reconsider a matter of this nature if further evidence can be adduced.

Mr. Heath: Will the Secretary of State give a clear answer to the House? Did he or did he not direct the commanding officer to dismiss the charge? That is what the House wants to know, and it is his responsibility. Under what powers did he do it? Is it not clear that there is such a confusion of circumstances surrounding the case in relation to the report of the inquiry that we should have a White Paper setting out specifically


what the situation was and the grounds on which the Secretary of State took action?

Mr. Healey: I cannot accept that there is a case for a White Paper on this occasion, but I will undertake to inform the right hon. Gentleman and the House in as much detail as I can of the factors which emerged from the inquiries which were made.

Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first question. Did he direct the commanding officer to dismiss the charge?

Mr. Healey: I informed the commanding officer of the conclusion I had reached and he decided to dismiss the charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mrs. Anne Kerr: As an hon. Member representing a constituency which is traditionally military and naval, I wonder if my right hon. Friend recognises the extent to which the statement he has made this afternoon will be warmly welcomed? Will he in future work out precisely just who should be handcuffed and when? I should like him to answer why, if a man is not violent nor considered likely to escape in a violent manner, he can be handcuffed in this fashion.

Mr. Healey: This certainly is an aspect of the case which I shall be considering.

Mr. Peyton: As the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to make this decision, does he not now think it right to add just a note of regret, or even apology, for the fact that a man has been arrested, handcuffed and imprisoned? Does he not think that it would be fitting to offer compensation rather than wait to be sued?

Mr. Healey: I cannot accept that. I must remind the hon. Member of what his right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday, quite rightly, that there are circumstances which arise in the administration of government when, in the light of all the circumstances, it is right that a Minister should step in and wipe the slate clean. That is what I have done on this occasion, and I do not think hon. Members who raise that type of point are particularly furthering any of the interests which we all have at heart.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

EARLY-DAY MOTION 408 (CORRECTION)

Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an important error in today's Order Paper by which Early-Day Motion 408—Renewed United States Bombing of North Vietnam—includes by error my name.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member is in good company.

Mr. Price: I realise that there are a number of Prices in the House. I wonder if for the better protection of hon. Members' personal reputations it would be possible for the authorities of the House to ensure that the printers have a slightly better control over all their Prices.

Mr. Speaker: I think the simple answer is that the hon. Member has made his point. It will be corrected in the official records. I do not think there is any need to pursue it any further.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order. It may well be that it is I who am guilty and that I did not sign my first initial with the clarity I normally do.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Webster: On a point of order. May I draw attention to col. 246 of the OFFICIAL REPORT where it is stated that I made a number of statements so derogatory to the Conservative Opposition that I cannot think I made them? I have a feeling that probably it was the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) who made those expressions in the debate on the London Government Bill. I ask that the OFFICIAL REPORT may be corrected accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: It will be so amended.

BILL PRESENTED

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Bill to provide for the establishment of a public board with the function of promoting the ability of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom to compete in world markets; to enable the


board to give financial assistance to persons carrying on shipbuilding undertakings and marine engine manufacturing undertakings; to enable the Minister of Technology to give guarantees in connection with the construction of ships in shipyards situated in the United Kingdom and the equipment of ships constructed in such shipyards; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn; supported by Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. William Ross, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Douglas Jay, Mr. John Stonehouse, and Mr. Roy Mason; read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow and to he printed.

Orders of the Day — MARINE, &c., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.50 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. Would you be kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House, for the record, whether the Amendment standing in my name has been selected?
[That this House, in censuring Her Majesty's Government for its persistent failure to adopt a constructive broadcasting policy, calculated to eliminate the violation of international agreements reserving certain wavelengths for necessary purposes and to eliminate the violation of private property in the form of artists' copyright, declines now to give a second reading to a kill-joy Bill which will deprive millions of people (including tens of thousands of the constituents of the hon. Member for Ilford, North, many of whom have made urgent representations to him about this) of the sound of music they love and can at present get only from pirate radio stations, and a Bill which is, moreover, purely defeatist and which makes no provision for legitimate local broadcasting stations in such a way as to satisfy the popular demand for light music without taking a penny more out of the pockets of a people already over-controlled and over-taxed by a disgraced Government.]

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member and the House for not announcing my selection at once. His Amendment has not been selected. Of the Amendments standing on the Order Paper, I have selected the one in the name of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan).
[That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the Government has put into effect a comprehensive broadcasting policy which takes account of the proved desire of millions of people to enjoy the choice of a wide variety of radio programmes, the interests of artists and copyright holders, and of Great Britain's international obligations.]

Mr. Short: I propose, first, to say why the Bill is necessary and, in so doing, I shall describe the way in which it came to take the form in which it is placed before the House. Secondly, I shall describe the provisions of the Bill


and, thirdly, I shall deal with the Opposition Amendment in the way in which it ought to be dealt with—namely, by showing that it is a piece of cynical and rather arrogant nonsense.
The purpose of the Bill is to put an end to broadcasting from the pirate stations which have appeared around our shores in increasing numbers during the past three years. I use the term "pirate" broadcasting because it conveys vividly what these broadcasters are. They operate outside the law—or so they believe—and they "pirate" wavelengths which have been assigned by Governments to legitimate broadcasting authorities.
Since the radio frequency spectrum is an extremely valuable and limited international commodity, and since radio transmissions in one country can affect radio reception in another, there must be international regulation of the way in which wavelengths are used. If international regulations are essential in any sphere, they are certainly essential in this. The specialised agency of the United Nations which is responsible for this is the International Telecommunication Union. The Union is virtually a worldwide organisation and the Radio Regulations annexed to the International Tele-communication Convention make quite clear, beyond any doubt, that pirate broadcasting has no standing internationally and that all the contracting Governments have an obligation to one another to put it down.
One regulation lays down that no transmitting station may be established or operated by a private person or by any enterprise without a licence issued by the Government of the country to which the station in question is subject. Another regulation expressly prohibits the establishment and use of broadcasting stations on board ships, aircraft or any other floating or airborne objects on or over the high seas. At its last major radio conference, in 1959—at which the Conservative Government were represented —the International Telecommunication Union urged Governments to take the necessary action to prevent or suspend such operations.
Pirate broadcasters deliberately put themselves outside these controls and seize any wavelengths which best suit their purpose, whatever the effect their

transmissions may have on the radio services of other countries. They do this, moreover, in the complacent knowledge that no country—and least of all this country—would dream of interfering with a ship on the high seas.
In 1962, when it was seen that pirate broadcasting stations around the coasts of North-West Europe were circumventing the international regulations with impunity by operating outside the jurisdiction of member countries, the International Telecommunication Union collaborated with the Council of Europe in drafting the European Agreement, with which the House is familiar and in the negotiation in which the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) played a not insubstantial part. It was published in 1965 as a White Paper, Cmnd. 2616, and is available in the Vote Office.
It will be apparent from the dates that I have mentioned that the Government's concern to preserve law and order in the use of radio frequencies does not represent a new departure in policy nor, in this field, have we hesitated to build on the foundations laid by our Conservative predecessors. I will read part of the preamble to the European Agreement—which, I repeat, was drafted when a Conservative Government were in office and with their full knowledge and co-operation:
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its Members;
Considering that the Radio Regulations annexed to the International Telecommunication Convention prohibit the establishment and use of broadcasting stations on board ships, aircraft or any other floating or airborne objects outside national territories;
Considering also the desirability of providing for the possibility of preventing the establishment and use of broadcasting stations on objects affixed to or supported by the bed of the sea outside national territories;
Considering the desirability of European collaboration in this matter…
and it goes on to enumerate the 13 regulations.
The object of the European Agreement was to go further than simply laying down a set of principles. It is a specific instrument. It was judged essential that participating countries should accept an obligation to take positive and concerted action against the pirates on common lines and


in a manner which would be consonant with the legal system of each country.
This is what the European Agreement provides for. It lays on the contracting parties an obligation to make punishable as offences not merely the establishment or operation of pirate stations on their own ships, or by their own nationals on any ship, but acts of collaboration knowingly performed. And the Agreement spells out what are to be regarded as acts of collaboration. In broad terms, these are the provision of equipment, supplies, programme material and advertising for such stations. In other words, the Council of Europe came to the conclusion that pirate broadcasting on the high seas could be stopped—and could be stopped without the use of strong—arm action—if enough countries agreed among themselves to enact legislation to deprive the pirates of the supply of things they need to keep going.
The United Kingdom participated in the drafting of the European Agreement and we signed it on 22nd January, 1965, the day it was opened for signature. Eleven other European countries have also signed and eventually all member countries of the International Telecommunication Union will be invited to join in.
This Bill not only responds to the recommendations of a specialised agency of the United Nations, but it is also a direct consequence of an international undertaking given by this country in Strasbourg, an undertaking which our European neighbours are looking to us to implement, since many of them are suffering from the radio disturbance caused by pirate broadcasting stations for which they regard us as responsible and which they consider we have tolerated for far too long.
It will be apparent from the time-scale of the events which I have described in this brief survey that the intentions of the Government differ in no way from those of the last Conservative Administration—and had the fortunes of war, so to speak, turned out differently, a Conservative Postmaster-General would have been introducing almost precisely the same Bill today.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Are we the first country to be

taking action such as this and proposing such a Bill?

Mr. Short: Twelve countries have signed the agreement. We are the third country to enact legislation, but, of course, we are the chief offender. It will also be clear that the prevention of pirate broadcasting is not an objective of this country alone. It is shared by every country which is party to the international radio regulations, and that means virtually every country in the world.
If hon. Members opposite oppose the Bill tonight, they will do precisely what they did in the case of Rhodesia. They will be opposing world opinion on a matter of this kind. This is a universal convention. Every country has an obligation to apply it. If hon. Members opposite oppose the Bill tonight, they are opposing that universal agreement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of the countries which have been signatories to that agreement have permitted their own State and private broadcasting companies massively to increase their frequencies, without international agreement?

Mr. Short: I have read Mr. Gorst's pamphlet as well. However, I do not think that Mr. Gorst has all the facts quite right.
I have mentioned that our European neighbours are anxious to see us complete this legislation as soon as possible. I have no doubt that many of the people who enjoy the broadcasts by the pirate stations have no idea that they are getting their pleasure at the expense of other people abroad who are being deprived by these transmissions of their own domestic broadcasting services.
I have received complaints from many European countries about this. I would draw the attention of the House particularly to the extreme patience which has been shown by the Italian Government and the Italian broadcasting authorities towards the severe interference which no less than three of the pirate stations have been causing to the Italian broadcasting services. These are services which are operated by the Italian authorities in full accord with the international agreement and regulations. We in this House have a duty to fulfil towards our Italian and other friends in Europe, to


ensure that this unwarrantable nuisance which is being perpetrated in waters round our coasts is removed as soon as possible. I hope that the House will ensure that that is made possible.
I repeat that to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill is to vote against the removal of that nuisance, not for its removal.

Mr. Iremonger: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House or the public. It would be fair for him to make it clear that no one on this side will be invited to vote against the Bill. We shall be voting for a reasoned Amendment, for the exact reason that the right hon. Gentleman has explained.

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman may stand on his head if he wishes. He says that he will vote for an Amendment which begins:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill …

Hon. Members: Read on.

Mr. Short: I shall be reading the whole Amendment, and I will deal with it in a moment.
I have also made clear in the House in the past that interference caused by the pirate stations is not confined to broadcasting services. One of the big defects of these stations is that they are not engineered to the same degree of perfection as the broadcasting stations of the legitimate broadcasting organisations here and elsewhere in Europe. It is not just that the licences of the authorised organisations specify tight technical requirements. They have their reputations to consider, and seek themselves to maintain the highest technical standards in the interests of good broadcasting.
The pirates, on the other hand, have no such obligations, and their transmissions frequently spill over into neighbouring frequencies such as those used by ships and coastguard stations. Recently, I had a very strong complaint from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution that its services had suffered.
I repeat again that a vote for the Amendment tonight is a vote to retain this hazard to shipping.
These are not the only reasons why the Bill is necessary. There are many con-

straints to which broadcasters operating within the rule of law are subject. They have to observe the general body of the law in such matters as contracts, libel, copyright, taxation, contracts and conditions of employment, the whole body of company law, and hosts of other matters.
The pirates operating outside territorial limits give themselves scope for avoiding these obligations, particularly in the matter of copyright. By depriving copyright holders of the protection which the law normally provides for them, the pirates are able to obtain at trifling cost the material to fill their programmes. To me, it is inconceivable that any hon. Member would wish to allow the law to be flouted in this way.
I believe that every hon. Member has received a letter from Sir Alan Herbert——

Sir Robert Cary: Are the pirate stations not paying any copyright fees at all?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman will find the answer to that question in the letter to which I have just referred, but my hon. Friend will deal with this in detail tonight.
This is what Sir Alan Herbert says in his letter:
The plain fact is that their (the pirates) sole interest is to make as much money as they can for themselves. They could not attract a pennyworth of income without using the property of creative artists and other copyright owners. This they do without permission, and, in most cases, without even token payment. In most fields such practices lead quickly to heavy penalties. As yet, in the sphere of offshore radio, they do not. Hence the Bill, which must surely receive the support of all who feel that making free with other people's property without their leave is an activity which is neither romantic nor amusing, and should no longer be tolerated.
In its circular to every hon. Member, the British Copyright Council itself said:
The real case against the pirate radios is that they have placed themselves, or endeavoured to place themselves, outside the law in order to be able to take the legal property of copyright owners without permission, and to avoid the obligations and conditions to which copyright users, and in particular the B.B.C., who operate under the law, are subject. They accordingly are correctly designated as pirates, and their motives, like those of all pirates, are personal gain at the expense of law abiders.
It is to maintain that state of affairs that hon. Members opposite will oppose this Bill tonight.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman being fair to the procedures of Parliament when he suggests that the first line of our reasoned Amendment means that we decline to give support to all the points that he has raised so far, when the whole matter was first started by a Conservative Administration? The reasoned Amendment is the only way open to this side of the House to let it be known that the Government are dealing with one matter, but at the same time creating other anomalies which are far worse.

Mr. Short: I understand from Press reports that the hon. Gentleman intends to vote for an Amendment which begins with the words:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill …

Hon. Members: "…until…"

Mr. Short: I will deal with "until" in a moment.
I now turn to the Bill itself. At the outset, I wish to make clear that it not only fulfils our obligations under the Council of Europe Agreement, which relates to the prevention of broadcasting from ships and aircraft on the high seas. It is also designed to enable the Government to deal effectively with any pirate broadcasting stations within our territorial limits, whether they are on ships, aircraft or other floating or airborne objects, or on structures such as abandoned forts in the Thames Estuary.
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill make all such broadcasting unlawful. Clause 1 also makes unlawful broadcasting from United Kingdom registered ships and aircraft anywhere in the world outside our territorial waters. The two Clauses lay down primarily that it is the owner and master of the ship or aircraft and everyone operating or participating in the operation of the station who are guilty of an offence. In practice, such persons are normally the agents or servants of the companies on land, and these Clauses make clear that this legislation is also aimed directly at the broadcasting organisers on shore, by making it an offence to procure such broadcasts.
Clauses 1 and 2, then, relate to broadcasting in situations over which the Government clearly must have full legal

control, namely, broadcasting by anyone, British or otherwise, in our own territory or territorial waters, and by anyone anywhere in the world in our own ships and aircraft, wherever they may be.
Obviously, we cannot legislate directly against broadcasting on the high seas in circumstances which would be outside the jurisdiction of our courts. Nor can other countries. It would not be consonant with international law in its present state. This, of course, was foreseen by the Council of Europe when the European Agreement was being drawn up, but the agreement provides that each signatory nation will take powers to deal with its own nationals if they operate broadcasting stations in any ships or aircraft on or over the high seas, regardless of registration or place of registration.
This we do in Clause 3 as regards United Kingdom nationals who operate broadcasting apparatus, or who participate in this, on or over the high seas, from any ship or aircraft which is not registered in the United Kingdom. Indeed, we have gone further and made it an offence for any such person to operate broadcasting apparatus on a structure erected in the high seas. As there are one or two of these structures around our coasts outside our territorial waters, this is a necessary precaution. As in Clauses 1 and 2, we make it an offence also for anyone in the United Kingdom, whatever his nationality, to arrange for broadcasting to take place in any such ship, aircraft, structure or other object on or over the high seas, and I hope that everybody is aware of this.
We now come to Clauses 4 and 5, which deal with what the European Agreement terms "acts of collaboration" knowingly performed, and these Clauses are the teeth of the Bill. They are intended to make it so difficult for the pirate broadcasters to obtain supplies of all things they require from land, including their advertising revenue, that they will be unable to continue.
Clause 4 makes it an offence for people to facilitate the establishment or operation of pirate broadcasting stations by furnishing ships or aircraft, providing apparatus, supplies and materials, transporting goods and persons to and from the stations, repairing or maintaining the wireless appartus and engaging staff to


serve on the stations. Of course we have to be reasonable about this. It would obviously be wrong to pursue someone who may have indirectly and quite unwittingly helped the pirates in one way or another, and we have been careful to ensure that this Clause, and Clause 5 as well, is aimed only against people who are clearly, directly, and knowingly doing things in furtherance of a pirate broadcasting enterprise and may be reasonably supposed to know what they are about.
The sort of people we have in mind here are those who regularly provision the stations, or keep them supplied with oil for their generators, or carry to and fro by tenders. As in the earlier Clauses, it will also be an offence for anyone in this country to arrange for any of these things to be done by anybody abroad. I hope that this, too, is clearly understood.
The complementary prohibitions, that is to say of acts relating to the programmes themselves, are dealt with in Clause 5. This makes it an offence to supply programme material to be broadcast by the stations, to participate in the broadcasts, to advertise by means of them, either directly or by arranging sponsored programmes, or to issue any publicity about them. The pirates are, of course, in this business for money. To reduce the possibility of their obtaining it from advertising services abroad we here again make it an offence for anyone in this country to arrange for any of the acts described in the Clause about which I have been talking to be done by anybody abroad.
In creating these new offences so as to bring to an end pirate broadcasting around our shores, we do not overlook that situations could arise in which humanitarian consideration must take precedence. If a pirate broadcasting ship was in distress, or one of the disc-jockeys was ill, and a lifeboat or a doctor went out, it would obviously be wrong for the coxswain or other boatman to be penalised for helping to save lives. Clause 7 ensures that this shall not happen. Similarly, with journeys for official purposes, no one will be penalised.
Otherwise provision is made—in Clause 6—for offences to be prosecuted summarily or on indictment, and, in view

of the variety of places in which offences under the Bill might be committed, and the procedural difficulties which could arise from this, provision is made for proceedings to be taken anywhere within the United Kingdom.
In Clause 8 provision is made for the Government to authorise by licence what is otherwise forbidden under other provisions of the Bill. The House will recall that the Bill relates to United Kingdom territorial waters as well as to the high seas and, without the saving in Clause 8, the Government could not, for example, authorise the siting of a broadcasting station within territorial waters even if circumstances arose in which that was clearly a suitable place to put a station.
I do not think that the remaining Clauses call for any special mention by me. I believe that I have said sufficient to show how necessary the Bill is. I would only remind the House that the Bill represents our share in a series of interlocking legislative enactments in different countries. Some countries—the Scandinavian countries and Belgium—have already enacted legislation, but, as I said before in reply to an hon. Gentleman opposite, we are by far the worst offender. It is our turn now, and I have every reason to believe that others will follow.
A great many ingenious arguments have been advanced by the pirates and their supporters to suggest that the pirates, far from being suppressed, should be actively encouraged. Concepts like "freedom of speech" and "human rights" have been invoked. I have no doubt that today we shall hear a good deal about freedom of speech and human rights and I am going to resist the temptation to answer those arguments in advance.
I have tried to demonstrate that what the Government are striving for in presenting the Bill is the preservation of broadcasting itself. We must work within the framework of international regulation in the use of radio. If we do not, there will be chaos. If everyone with some cash at his disposal who wanted to set up a broadcasting station were able to do so without restraint as to wavelength and power, broadcasting as we know it would eventually become impossible. Clearly we must not allow this to happen.


We all know that we are living in an age when law and order needs reinforcing, and it is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.
The Opposition Amendment says:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the Government has put into effect a comprehensive broadcasting policy which takes account of the proved desire of millions of people to enjoy the choice of a wide variety of radio programmes,"—
I hope that the House will note the next part—
the interests of artists and copyright holders, and of Great Britain's international obligations.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Short: If hon. Gentlemen cheer that, they will cheer anything.
In other words, the Opposition wish to gain some imagined popularity, and heaven knows they need it, by opposing world opinion, as they did recently over Rhodesia—I have said it before and I shall say it over and over again—by putting themselves on the side of law-lessness, and by saying that this country will not honour its international obligations. They then have the effrontery to say that this Government are not providing a greater choice in radio programmes.
But perhaps the most astounding piece of nonsense is the final line, which accuses the Government of ignoring the interests of artists and copyright holders, and of ignoring Great Britain's international obligation.—[HON. MEMBERS: "It does not say that."] Of course it does. I do not understand the meaning of English words if it does not say that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that the whole purpose of the Bill is, among other things, to reassert the interests of artists and copyright holders who have been trampled underfoot by the pirates. One of the purposes of the Bill is to honour our international obligations. One wonders just how low the Conservative Party can get in order to retrieve their electoral fortunes. They can call black white if they wish to do so.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are millions of people who wish to listen to pirate radio stations?

Mr. Short: Listening to pirates does not alter my argument. That has nothing

to do with it. Let me deal with these points in detail.
At the moment, radio listeners in Britain have a choice of three programmes which we inherited from the previous Government—the Home Service, the Light Programme, and the Third Network. This year we will provide a fourth choice before the end of the summer. It will be a popular music programme for the greater part of the population, and we will provide a fifth choice for millions of listeners in nine selected areas, leading eventually to a national system of local radio. Perhaps when he makes his speech the hon. Gentleman will tell the House what his Government did in 13 years about local radio. Will he tell us what they did about local radio to provide a non-stop music programme all day? We are providing these things this year.
I want to say a few words about the Government's plan for a popular music programme. My colleagues and I are in no doubt that there is a wide demand for continuous light music and that it would be right to meet this demand. If there is a considerable demand of this kind it should be met. I do not think that it is a demand for non-stop pop. Clearly the housewife who is at home during the day—and some still are—likes to hear something like "We'll gather lilacs" and that sort of nostalgic music. She likes a rather different kind of light music.
It is easy to pose as a public benefactor, as the pirates do, and attempt to meet this need by appropriating wave-lengths which have been allocated to some other country, but when, in order to meet the demand for continuous popular music, it is necessary to use a wavelength already allocated to one of our own three services, the reality of the problem becomes clear. That is my problem. A fourth choice of this kind cannot be provided in this country without some disturbance to an already existing programme. My problem was to balance the gain to some people against the loss to other people. I admit that quite clearly.
I came to the conclusion that this balance could best be struck by broadcasting the popular music programme on 247 metres, which is used in some parts of the country to supplement the long-wave transmission of


the Light Programme. The Light Programme on long-wave reaches the overwhelming majority of listeners. Moreover, virtually the whole country can now get it on v.h.f., and portable v.h.f. sets are on the market at low prices. I saw one this week selling for less than £7. Some listeners-I do not want to minimise this—will not be able to receive the Light Programme as well as they do at present. A small number will not be able to receive it at all unless they have a v.h.f. set.
On the other hand—and this is what we have to balance—a great many people will be able to get the new music programme. The B.B.C. put the eventual figure at 80 per cent. So, as the White Paper puts it, on an overall appraisal the provision of a popular music programme on 247 metres will provide an extension of choice for listeners.

Mr. John Page: Will the Minister tell us what will be the cost of this programme?

Mr. Short: If the hon. Member wants those figures my hon. Friend will supply them at the end of the debate.
I now want to say a few words about the second way in which the Government will increase the choice of listeners. The experiment in communal local radio marks what will, I believe, prove to be an entirely new dimension in sound broadcasting in this country.
In considering this matter I started from the premise that if these communal stations were to be worth the use of the resources which they involve they must be genuinely local. By this I do not mean merely that a large number of stations would each serve a small area, each putting out essentially the same kind of programme, whether networked or recorded. This would be a particularly inefficient and wasteful way of doing what could be much more easily done by transmitting on a regional or national basis. And it would not be local radio in what to me is its only meaningful sense, namely, a service such that the output of each station would be of particular interest and value to the locality it served.
The Government's objective is that a local radio station should help a community to express its own distinctive character and interests. It must stand

against the pressure towards conformity. Within its own community it must work to revive and strengthen the sense of communal identity. A proper pride of place should be the dynamic and objective of local radio.
Local radio can contribute greatly to the life of the community; most certainly in entertainment—and I hope that it will do much to sustain and improve locally generated entertainment—but also on the educational, cultural and social levels. In moving towards what will be an entirely now conception of broadcasting for this country it seemed right to me to start with a fairly large-scale pilot scheme and to derive from this the experience which will be essential before informed decisions can be taken on the establishment of a permanent and general service, which it is the Government's intention to create.
The Government have therefore decided on an experiment with nine stations which will be chosen to give the widest range of information. They will, I hope, include a community which has within its boundaries a rural element. I hope to choose the first three stations within the next week or so—and I have had a great many applications from cities throughout the country, in most cases agreeing to provide all the money necessary. The others will follow early in 1968. I hope that by the beginning of 1969——

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman has said that various cities are prepared to meet the whole cost of these schemes. Will this money come from the ratepayers? How will they meet it?

Mr. Short: It will come from a variety of sources, as indicated in the White Paper.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the Minister enumerate them?

Mr. Short: The hon. Member will see when I announce the stations in a short time.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the Minister give an undertaking that none of the money offered will come from the general rate fund?

Mr. Short: if a local authority contributes, of course it will be from the rate


fund—but we have laid it down that it must be for services rendered, for educational broadcasting or something of that kind. There is no direct subvention from the rates, as the White Paper makes clear.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if, for example, a local chamber of commerce agrees to support one of these schemes it is bound to be a sponsor, in the sense that it will be sponsoring the thing that the chamber of commerce represents? Is the Minister offering a sponsoring system which we outlawed completely in the Television Act?

Mr. Short: Sponsoring, in the sense that that we understand it, is, as the hon. Member knows, forbidden in the B.B.C. Charter. This represents the essential cleavage between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. The Conservative Party believes—and I do not object to it; it is a sincerely-held belief—that all human needs can be met, and all entertainment and services and goods can be provided, as a by-product of the search for profit. We take the view that there is a better way of doing it. We agree that the search for profits may provide some of the things that we need, but I believe that it is not the way in which to provide local radio. We recognise that this is one of the great high-water marks between the Labour Party and the Tory Party.
I hope to choose the first three stations within the next week or so and the remaining six early in 1968. I hope that by the beginning of 1969 we will have been able to appraise the results of the experiment and reach conclusions as to the form that a permanent service should take.
We have asked the B.B.C. to undertake this experiment and the two main factors entering into this decision were, first, the Government's determination to maintain——

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Did the Minister say that he would be announcing the first three stations next week and the next six not until 1968?

Mr. Short: If I said that, I was wrong. I am hoping to announce the first three stations very soon. I do not know whether it will be as soon as next week,

but it will be before very long. I shall announce the others as soon as possible —certainly long before next year.
Two main factors entered into our decision to ask the B.B.C. to undertake the experiment. The first was the Government's determination to maintain the public service principle in broadcasting. The second was that it would plainly be out of the question to consider establishing a new broadcasting service for this limited experiment. I stress again that it is an experiment with which we are immediately concerned, although it is a very big one, which will affect millions of people. The White Paper makes it plain beyond doubt that the choice of the B.B.C. to carry out this experiment implies no commitment that it should provide a permanent service if it were decided at the end of the experiment to authorise one. I reaffirm that.
The Government had to consider whether the B.B.C., as a national body, would be unsuited to the task because of the risk of over-centralisation and "London bias". It is to counter this risk that we are setting up for each station a local broadcasting council. It will be the council's main task to safeguard and guarantee the distinctive local quality of its station; to ensure its pride of place. The B.B.C. has assured me that it will do everything it can to ensure that the councils can fulfil this task. I shall select the councils myself for the experimental stations, and I shall take a great deal of trouble to ensure that they are as broadly representative as possible of the community they serve. I would emphasise particularly that I wish the youth of the community to play a full part in these stations.
Finally, on the financing of local radio, I would remind hon. Members that the White Paper's records that, since the essential purpose is to give expression to local aspirations and interests, it seems right that its income should derive from local sources. It would be unjust to place the burden on listeners generally, for example in rural areas, for a new amenity which would not be generally available. If a community has a station, that community, in some way or other, must pay for it——

Mr. Christopher Rowland: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared at some time to reconsider this


principle, which has been put forward by the Government? On this basis, B.B.C.2 would never have been put into operation, as many people cannot receive it. I believe that it is an erroneous principle.

Mr. Short: It is a matter of opinion. I do not think that it is erroneous. I should hate to impose another 7s. 6d. on the licence fee for people who live in rural areas for a radio service for people in the towns. As to my hon. Friend's other point, although everybody may not have B.B.C.2 at the moment, they will get it eventually——

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps I might be allowed to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) speaks for himself and not for all of us on this side of the House.

Mr. Short: That shows what an evocative theme broadcasting is.
It is a complete misunderstanding of the position to say that the financial basis is uncertain. Careful inquiries which I made before deciding on the experiment suggested that local contributions would be a real possibility. There is no doubt, from inquiries conducted by the B.B.C. since the publication of the White Paper, that the stations will be largely financed from local sources. Just what the income will be in practice can be determined only from experiment. All the signs are, however, that there will be no lack of applications from towns and cities to be among the nine which will take part in the experiment.
I have given the reasons for the Bill and have described why it is in this form. I have outlined its provisions and I have elaborated the two proposals for additional listener choice put forward in the White Paper. Let me summarise. The pirate stations operate outside the law, some, as our prosecutions have shown, in clear breach of the law. They steal wavelengths allocated by international agreement to other countries. Their operation is forbidden by the regulations of the I.T.U., a specialist agency of the United Nations. This country has given a specific undertaking at Strasbourg to close them down. They are a nuisance to listeners in a number of other Euro-

pean countries. They impair ship-to-shore radio links. They steal the copyright of the records they play.
It is beyond my comprehension how any self-respecting Member of this House, which has for so long been dedicated to the rule of law, can vote against the Bill. The reasons given for refusing the Bill a Second Reading, as set out in the Amendment, are cynical in the extreme. Since I took up this office last July I have announced a fourth radio service and a substantial beginning to local sound radio, both to start this year. This morning, I announced the biggest advance in British televison since it began and a solution to the main outstanding broadcasting problem.
This Government's record on broadcasting stands up against the record of Conservative Governments during 13 years in office. I leave it to the House to judge, but I hope that the not insubstantial number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are dedicated to the maintenance of law and order and the honouring of international obligations will hesitate a great deal before going into the Division Lobby against the Bill.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the Government has put into effect a comprehensive broadcasting policy which takes account of the proved desire of millions of people to enjoy the choice of a wide variety of radio programmes, the interests of artists and copyright holders, and of Great Britain's international obligations.
The Postmaster-General has explained with some relish the plans by which he means to sink the pirates. He seems less conscious of the fact that he is at the same time and at one blow depriving 20 million unoffending people in England and Wales, and especially in Scotland, of a programme they enjoy, and still less conscious of the responsibility for this, which lies fairly and squarely on his shoulders and those of his predecessor.
We are not in favour of the breaking of international agreements, nor do we believe that the most sensible place from which to broadcast a radio programme is a small boat in the North Sea. But when, for purely electoral reasons, the pirate radio system has had over two and


a half years to build up a huge audience, which is now to be left high and dry with no reasonable replacement, we have the right to protest on their behalf.
I am astonished that the Postmaster-General is so foolhardy as to take this high moral line in his presentation of the Bill. If he were obsessed less by the sins of the pirates and more with the wants of the listeners, we should have a happier listening public. Who is he to point the finger? He used the word "cynical". For two and a half years now we have had sanctimonious little lectures from him and his predecessor about the evils of pirates. Time and again, the warnings have come down from on high.
We have been told that no honest and self-respecting Government could tolerate these outlaws, that they must be expunged very soon, that this was a squalid picture, of which none of us should be proud. Yet nothing happened and the audience and the pirates grew. We suggested, perhaps unworthily, that the Government were waiting until after the election, but we were told that the only reason was the impossibility of fitting this great Measure into the Parliamentary programme.
Hundreds of Bills were pushed through the machine, but still there was no room for this massive reform. We imagined that for some reason it must be necessitating some enormous, 100-Clause Bill—but now the great moment has arrived, and what do we see? A little 7-page affair for which we were offered half a day for the Second Reading debate. This is what could not be fitted into the programme over all these years. This is the great Bill for which no time could be found before the election—and the Government hoped to polish it off in half a day.
This high and mighty line must be stopped. From your place of vantage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you could never have seen such humbug. The ex-Chief Whip has worked so long close to the Prime Minister that he has picked up some of his tricks. This holier-than-thou attitude breeds arrogance and arrogance breds ignorance.
Because the pirates were beneath the contempt of the Postmaster-General and his predecessor, he could not bring himself even to talk to them, to warn them

personally that he meant business. This applies especially to his predecessor. If he had done so, he would have realised that it was the fact that the Government appeared to be making no provision for an alternative which made them doubt his sincerity and they multiplied. He would communicate only by lofty Press hand-outs of speeches at trade lunches. So the numbers grew, from two to ten, despite the warnings, which shows how sincere they thought he was. If he had talked to them, he might have found some of the reason for their success—for he cannot deny that they have been a success.
However, to the right hon. Gentleman it is not only the pirates who are untouchable—anything commercial is absolute anathema to him. He said that a commercial programme is the by-product of the search for profits. I suppose that someone making exports comes into the same category. This is a fantastic comparison. So, believe it or not, he has not even been to see the one and only legal commercial station in action in Britain. He apparently knows it all; there is nothing he can learn from that station or the man who runs it, Mr. Mayer, who has had more experience in these matters over 20 years than anyone else in England——

Mr. Short: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in full spate, but I pointed out before that I spent a whole afternoon with Mr. Myer discussing his station with him. I have also read his pamphlet.

Mr. Bryan: This I was aware of. I will come a little later to what I mean by "visit".
I must confess that I have met most of the pirates and I have spent a couple of days studying Radio Manx in the Isle of Man. The Postmaster-General may think that I have thus forfeited a chance of joining him in Heaven, but I have at least learned a lot from these visits and I tremble at the unthought-out uninformed and unprepared scurry into radio policy now being contemplated. I say "unprepared", because when the right hon. Gentleman took over the reins of radio policy he found that his predecessor had left him no horse. It was all unprepared.


We contend that the absence from the Bill of any adequate provision for a replacement of the programmes that it kills is a grave defect. We hope to introduce a new Clause at a later stage to remedy this. Much of what I shall now say has such a Clause in view. I think that what I shall say will be constructive.
We keep being told that it is impossible exactly to replace the pirate programmes. We know this, but I believe that, if we approach the problem taking serious notice of the lessons to be learned from the experience of the pirates, Radio Manx and foreign stations, the result could be more rewarding and acceptable to the public than anything we have yet heard from the off-shore stations.
To me, the first lesson of the pirate experience is not that people want an all-day pop programme. It is far less conclusive than that. Radio Caroline concentrates on pop, Radio London on the Top 40, Radio 390 on what it calls "sweet music", Radio Manx on a totally different sort of local programme. All are successful. At the same time, their success has not seriously interfered with B.B.C. listening numbers. So I think it can be said that we have learned for certain that people want a wider choice in addition to the B.B.C.
The signs are that the addition is wanted in the commercial type of programme. I say no more than that. A Gallup survey recently asked the following question:
The Government proposes to allow non-commercial interests to set up local radio stations which will not take advertising. Do you think that this is a right decision or should local radio stations be allowed to accept advertising to pay the costs?
The answer showed that 62 per cent. were in favour of accepting advertising, 22 per cent. against, and 16 per cent. did not know. So, as surveys go, it is a very heavy majority in favour of commercial local radio.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the people who have answered this questionnaire have the remotest idea of the extent to which advertising increasingly encroaches upon listening time, as it does in the United States, Australia, and so on?

Mr. Bryan: I would certainly assume that if we had commercial radio some sort of regulations would be laid down as for commercial television. There would certainly be a limit. I think that it is six minutes in the hour on television. We certainly would do the same for commercial radio, so I do not think that point arises.
As to what is commercial radio, it is difficult to define the exact difference in tone and approach between a commercial radio programme and a B.B.C. programme. All I can say is that when the B.B.C. tries to imitate the commercials it is rather like the Postmaster-General and me going to a teen-age dance. We should either be too merry or too dull. We should not get it quite right. The B.B.C. does not quite get the tone the whole time.
Commercial programmes succeed also in achieving an audience participation which the B.B.C. can never quite manage. They seem to talk with the listeners rather than to them. I asked one of the more successful commercial producers what guided him in formulating his policy. He answered, quite seriously, "I assume that everybody is lonely". We may smile at that fairly simple guide, but in a modern community more and more people are lonely. Chapel Street, Rochdale, Oldham, Halifax, whatever we may like to call it, may have been a slum and unhealthy, but it was never lonely. Now its inhabitants are spread out in tower flats or housing estates. I think that experience shows that there is a demand for that kind of programme, when a person can switch on at any moment and know that he will hear a friendly, cheerful and preferably local and familiar voice.
I bring all this forward because I think this is exactly what is not being prepared at the moment. Regarding the B.B.C. 247 programme, in "B.B.C. Record" No. 48 we read this:
Now, there is to be only this one network of continuous popular music, and it is obvious that no single taste can be met in it at the same time. So what we are aiming at is a good, lively mixture, with special times of the day regularly earmarked for particular attention to such well-defined sections of the audience as the pop-lovers.
This will not add much to what we have already got on the B.B.C. The commercial programmes have shown the need


for a continuously acceptable programme rather than one divided into feature periods.
If it can be said that there is a definite and a proved need for a wide choice, I submit that local sound broadcasting is the only way to supply it. The B.B.C. can supply a vertical choice, but what people want is a horizontal choice. In other words, a play on one service and a symphony concert on the other gives no choice during the time of these broadcasts to those who want to listen to a sports broadcast, light music, or records.
The only way to get a wide horizontal choice is by local radio. This is what we propose on a far wider scale than I believe will ever be got or even than the Government have in mind. A large town like Leeds or Manchester could sustain six or seven programmes. We cannot tell exactly how many programmes until we try and discover exactly what they want. I stress that we cannot do this except by trial. Pilkington and other worthy bodies have forecast no demand for this and no demand for that in the broadcasting field and have often been wildly out.
Believe it or not, in New York there is a commercial station which broadcasts nothing all day but news and is successful Who on earth would have forecast that? But apparently it is wanted. We shall not discover what is wanted here until we experiment.
I think I have already given sufficient evidence that the public would prefer local radio run by commercial companies to the B.B.C. This is right in logic as well as in public preference. If one is trying to get a variety of choice, it follows that the programmes should come from a variety of sources. In any case, is it not time that the B.B.C. monopoly in broadcasting was broken? The case against monopoly in broadcasting is as strong as it ever was, and the B.B.C. is so firmly, and rightly firmly, established in the life of the country that it surely should not fear this sort of competition, if indeed it is competition.
In paragraphs 33 and 34 of the White Paper on Broadcasting, Cmnd. 3169, the Postmaster-General gives us the astonishing message that
the provision of a service genuinely 'local' in character … would prove incompatible with

the commercial objectives of companies engaging in local sound broadcasting".
What could be less local than the B.B.C. and a station manned by B.B.C. personnel? What could be more local than a station advertising the wares of the local grocer, the local fishmonger and butcher, where the listener buys his or her daily wants, and manned by local people? If this is all too lowly and if it sounds rather below what the Postmaster-General thinks the people ought to have, I would advise him to go hand in hand with the man who wrote those words to the Isle of Man—this is where I come back to the Isle of Man—and meet the people there and see whether Radio Manx in fact provides
a service genuinely 'local' in character.
It is really part of the community—one comes away with that view—and a part which it would not be without.
On the question of copyright and records—I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) will have a chance of speaking in the debate, because we shall be interested in what he has to say, especially on what I am about to say—obviously in any local radio station the record is an important raw material. What used to be second-best to the real thing is now an improvement on reality. In the making of a record an orchestra will play the piece a dozen times and the best of each playing will combine to make the record. So in the end the record in itself is a synthesis. It is the performance that never was. It is better than reality. Not only does it provide quality but it has flexibility and cheapness. I do not say that it is the key, but it is, therefore, a very important raw material.
On the other hand, one has to recognise that, as things are now, the record is the enemy of the Musicians' Union, and with just reason. History so far has shown that the more music is played by mechanical means the less work there is for musicians, the faster their numbers drop and the fewer opportunities they have. It is not surprising in these circumstances that the Musicians' Union insists on a limitation, through the record companies, of the playing of records, and the B.B.C. comes up against the great difficulty of "needle" time.
Against that, it is essential, if local sound broadcasting is to be developed,


that records be more readily available. How can we reconcile the position of musicians threatened with dwindling numbers and dwindling opportunities and the position of radio programme maker, who are hamstrung by shortage of records? In the B.B.C. publication, under the heading, "Why no continuous pop?", this problem is discussed in question and answer form. The question is put:
Could not the B.B.C. compensate the musical profession in some other way?
Answer: Not on its present income. The B.B.C. is already by far the biggest employer of musicians in this country".
Everyone in the House will agree that the Corporation's policy towards the live playing of music has been both admirable and generous. The answer in the pamphlet goes on:
Neither the B.B.C. nor the union wants to see any feather-bedding in music. Both believe in keeping the musicians playing. The B.B.C. already pays £2 million a year to professional musicians in fees, and only last year it set up a special training orchestra to provide trained players for the future".
Is there not the germ of a solution there?—" Not at its present income". With more money, some arrangement could be made. In the case of commercial local sound broadcasting, why could not a proportion of the profits be subtracted in the form of a levy or, perhaps, could there not be a levy imposed in relation to" needle "time and estimated audience? From this source a fund could be built up, and this fund could be run by the union or the union could have a big hand in running it, the proceeds being used for the benefit of musicians. That is what I should like to see. With the development of local radio, the fund could approach the £2 million which the B.B.C. pays in fees, and what it spends on a training orchestra. It could, perhaps, subsidise civic orchestras, or another academy of music.
That would be, at least, a constructive approach, and it would provide an entirely new outlook for musicians. A scheme which would actually increase the number of opportunities for musicians ought, surely, to be acceptable to them. I very much hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will make some comment on this suggestion. If we accept the present deadlock, we accept a

situation in which we are the only country, or one of the few countries, whose people are not allowed to listen to records on the radio even if they are willing to pay for them.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The proposal which my hon. Friend has made should be examined in all seriousness with a view to helping musicians, but I understood him to say that he thought that the B.B.C. was generous in the amount of use it made of British music. If he looks at the percentages, he will find that the proportion of British popular music played as compared with foreign importations is very low. For example, the cheque which has to be sent to America for the use of American music is very different from the cheque which America sends to us.

Mr. Bryan: I was referring to the use which the B.B.C. makes of musicians playing music live; in other words, its employment of actual players.
A word now about international agreements on wavelengths. According to the White Paper, the local radio experiment envisaged will use v.h.f. Only a small proportion of the population have v.h.f. sets. As the only point in having a v.h.f. set so far is to have better reception as opposed to extra choice of programmes, one assumes that that minority comes from the better-off section of the population. I imagine also that statistics exist to show that this is not the section which listens most to the radio. Therefore, any hope that an experiment in that way will be representative is doomed before it starts.
How can one assess the success or failure of an experimental station heard by only a small percentage of listeners, and that percentage a false sample of the natural audience? Why is it impossible to use medium wavelengths by day, when their capacity for interference is very much less than it is by night?
The use of medium wavelengths is controlled by the Copenhagen Agreement. Nevertheless, over 50 per cent.—I am not sure of the exact figure—of stations in Europe are using medium wavelengths or wavelengths not allotted to them under the Agreement. They are not all breaking the law. It is perfectly possible to come to an agreement with the official


holders of wavelengths on a non-interference basis. In other words, it would be possible for a local radio station here in England working on low strength to reach an agreement with a distant foreign station to use its allotted wavelength on a non-interference basis.
I have here the European Broadcasting Union list of stations dated November 1966. A large number of the stations listed are marked with the letter B. As I understand it, this indicates that there is a bilateral agreement on the use of a wavelength by more than one station.
For some reason or other, Britain has never taken advantage of this possibility. Why? The Post Office has always taken the line that daytime only use of a medium wavelength is of little or no value. Experience in the Isle of Man and abroad has shown that this is just not so. Daytime is peak time for local radio. If any local broadcasting is to get off the ground, it is almost essential that it be heard at some time of the day by the majority of the listening audience. Only hearing the programme on their present sets will persuade people then to buy v.h.f. sets.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: My hon. Friend will not overlook the importance of providing a service for car radio listeners. A very large number of people now use their car radios in daylight hours, yet, apparently, they are to be denied any chance of listening to local radio, unless they alter their sets or buy new ones.

Mr. Bryan: Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General will deal with that point also.
The B.B.C.'s Radio 247 and the local radio experiment are the Postmaster-General's alternatives to the pirates. I have already said something about Radio 247. The experiment is much harder to discuss because, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said today, it is much harder to take it seriously. So much so that people who know about broadcasting are sincerely asking whether the experiment is designed to ensure that there is no demand. First, as I have said, it will be heard by a minute and untypical sample of listeners. Second, the arrangements for finance as laid down in the White Paper—we shall see what happens in fact—are really no more than a joke. Indeed, the Postmaster-General was so worried that people were

laughing at paragraph 41 of the White Paper that he stressed at the radio industry lunch that it was not meant to be funny.
Before composing that paragraph, the right hon. Gentleman said, he made a serious research to confirm that, say, the art associations would subscril4e to local radio. May we be told how much he expects the art associations to subscribe towards the £1 million or whatever it is that the experiment will cost? They are almost always in the red themselves. What is suggested? Are they to run flag days, or how are they to raise the money?
What about the Council of Churches. What did it promise? These things cannot just be put in a White Paper unless there is something behind them. What about our old yet unborn friend the open university, the Prime Minister's "old flame"? Has she got a private income that we know nothing about? Will she pay for it, too?
When this matter was gone into seriously in the area where I live, not far from York, the various people concerned with these organisations were asked what proportion they might subscribe. Mr. Roy Howell, York City Treasurer said:
I don't know how on earth we could get the revenue to do this. A local authority derives its incomes from three sources—charge on rates, Government grants and charges for services provided. The Government has said local radio stations should not be financed out of rates, they are cutting down on grants rather than increasing them and there is no practical means of assessing the use of such a service, so how could one determine a charge?
Mr. D. M. Allen, Bursar of York University. said:
… on the question of finding money for it, we should find it very, very difficult.
The Secretary of York Chamber of Trade and Commerce, Mr. G. Goodall, said:
I don't think the idea will find too much favour with the Chamber of Trade and Commerce. Traders are not likely to dip into their pockets unless they see some benefit."—
again, the awful question of profits! Then there was the Bishop of Selby, Chairman of York Council of Churches, who said:
Whether the York Council of Churches could produce any money, that I don't know,


because we don't have any. We don't have any funds, except the bare minimum for running our three or four meetings a year.
Therefore, if one is to take the paragraph seriously, one is also obliged to ask the Postmaster-General to comment on the sentence:
There are also in local life various other bodies which might well be prepared to make financial contributions to the costs of the station in consideration of the general promotion through its programme of its objectives.
To me, that is straight sponsorship, but I shall not develop that point further, because it will no doubt be answered; it has been raised already. Sponsorship is, as the Postmaster-General says, absolutely against the rules, against the Charter.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I hope that my hon. Friend will press the point of sponsorship. I cannot really imagine that if a local authority is providing money—it does not matter where it gets it from—there will be legitimate editorial freedom for those running the local radio stations to criticise the local authority. Of course there will not.

Mr. Bryan: I do not think that the point could be better put.
It is quite obvious who will finance the experiment. Despite the sentence in paragraph 41 precluding the use of rates to pay for local radio, Sir Hugh Carleton ireene summoned to his meeting to discuss the future of the local radio experiment, not the art associations and not the Council of Churches, but the Association of Municipal Corporations. The yield of a ld. rate in Bristol or Manchester is quite enough to pay for a station. A big corporation does not mind risking that to show that it is a go-ahead authority. It will take charge and one will hear no more about art associations or the Council of Churches or anything else.
The brief we have all received from the B.B.C. says:
In order to get the experiment off the ground, the B.B.C. is prepared to provide the capital costs of the nine stations and also the running costs for 1967/68, though it would hope that a large part of this expenditure would actually be reimbursed. For 1968/69, however, local authorities will be expected to meet the running costs very substantially, if not in full.
The experiment will, in fact, be a B.B.C.-local authority tandem, and the B.B.C. monopoly will be strengthened by the fact that no municipality will want a

rival station, and for many years to come we shall be condemned to one local radio station in each big city. I have considerable respect for the B.B.C., and certainly for its leading personalities. I have a respect for the Post Office and its highly competent technical staff. Nobody can deny that. But when their interests both happen to coincide with the restrictive instincts of a Socialist Government, that is the time when the consumer—in this case the listener—should beware.
The restriction of the use of records, one of the main stumbling blocks to the development of local radio, is—subconsciously, maybe—not entirely unwelcome to the B.B.C., for the same reason that the high cost of a nuclear bomb is not entirely unwelcome to Russia and America. As a monopoly, it cannot look forward with great joy to the days when any little station can use any record, because that would make possible a proliferation of stations with a capacity for pretty good entertainment, and threaten its monopoly.
Therefore, that coincides with the Socialist instinct to keep radio in fewer, and therefore more controllable, hands. I am convinced that the Government have not the will to come to terms with the Musicians' Union to end the deadlock, which is uniquely and ridiculously confined to Great Britain.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman afraid that the B.B.C. will control local radio or does he think, with his hon. Friend, that the local corporations will control it? What precisely is he worrying about, and why does he think that record programmes are peculiarly suitable for local radio?

Mr. Bryan: I described it as a tandem, and the hon. Member can decide what that means. I said the two of them together.
On wavelengths, I am not convinced that the B.B.C., the Post Office and the Government want a greater availability of medium wavelengths; hence the apparent nil effort to negotiate bilateral non-interference agreements. I do not impute malice, but think that this is inborn in the Corporation. The resistance to changes beneficial to the listener is probably more inborn than calculated, but one cannot help noticing that a lot of things not wanted by the B.B.C. are allegedly


impossible. We were told in the Corporation's last annual report that
… it would be impossible for the B.B.C. to give up a whole network of this kind of entertainment without depriving many listeners having other tastes.
But under certain pressures it found that it could lose a wavelength, and that problem has been overcome.
All this leads me to believe that in Britain we need a Postmaster-General who is the champion of the listener and the viewer, who will protect him from built-in, institutional, political, probably Luddite, restrictions; a P.M.G. who will say to the Musicians' Union, "Use your power for the positive progressive benefit of your members. I will use my power for the benefit of the listener. But for the Lord's sake don't let either of us use our power just to stop things happening." We need a P.M.G. who will recognise that people—not just teen-agers, but a large range of the population—want more choice, and that the cheapness and ease of commercial finance of radio makes that possible, if he really wants it to be possible.
Instead, we have a Postmaster-General who tells us that the Bill, which deprives 20 million listeners of their habitual entertainment, has nothing whatever to do with any alternative arrangement that may be arranged in the White Paper. He boasts that he does not mind if there is an alternative to the pirate programme. The thousands of letters he has received, and which we have all received, appear to mean nothing to him.
To judge from what he has said, he just does not understand why commercial radio programmes have any appeal. He has been so blinkered in the past by his pathetic mistrust of all things commercial that he has decided in advance of any experiment that of all the English-speaking countries, the British people alone are to he saved from the contamination of the programmes they want by a Minister who presumes to know what is best for them.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)rose——

Mr. Bryan: I would just like to finish.
Let him have his experiment, but let him not rig it in favour of the B.B.C. Let it be an honest trial of all the possibilities. Let him be big enough to face

the possibility that he may be wrong. Then let him sink his kill-joy prejudices and have the courage to accept the result.

Mr. Edward Short: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? We are starting Radio 247 and local radio, giving colour to all the three television services, and going to the 625-line system. Will he tell us what his Government did in 13 years?

Mr. Bryan: One of the things we did was to introduce Independent Television. Would the Postmaster-General like to tell us what he thinks the present licence fee would be if the same amount of television were provided by yet another B.B.C.?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman says that the last Government increased listener-viewer choice by one service. We are increasing it by three services after only a few months in office.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I was hoping to hear from the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) something about his attitude to the pirate radio stations. I shall not talk about my attitude to commercial radio in the sense in which he used the word, for I want to refer back to what my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General said about the dangers and dissatisfactions that pirate radio stations cause on radio wavelengths throughout the world. It is no good the Opposition putting down an Amendment if they do not accept at the same time the urgent need for the Bill in the context of our commercial life—and I repeat that I do not mean commerce in the sense used by the hon. Gentleman.
I want to talk about the damage and dangers that exist if these stations are allowed to remain any longer than is eminently necessary. The Post Office throughout this whole difficult period has had to work against a background of having no legal means of stopping these pirate stations, and that is what the Bill is about. The Opposition say that they will vote against the Second Reading. I hope that they will listen to what I have to say about the dangers which exist from pirate radio stations.
There are about 12 coast radio stations, run by the Post Office. If the hon. Member for Howden has spent time visiting Radio Manx he might have spared time


to visit one of these Post Office coast radio stations. These stations also watch on the wavebands owned and used by the world for the protection of life at sea—the distress service, as it is called.
The main factor is that the pirate radio stations, particularly those near the mouth of the Thames—although those near other large ports do the same sort of damage—have, since their inception, caused interference to the radio service. There could well be a time when they could cause interference at the very time that a ship is in distress and has to depend on getting its message through. Fortunately, this has not happened up to now. Let us hope that it will not, but every moment that these pirate stations are allowed to go on we risk such a situation, and this is what the Bill is designed to stop.
If hon. Members opposite think that only a few ships come out with radio distress signals over a period, I will give them the figures relating to these 12 Post Office coast radio stations between March, 1965, and March, 1967, the last period for which we have comprehensive figures. Altogether, 85 ships sent out S.O.S. messages and 171 sent out urgency messages. The latter message is sent out at the stage when a ship is not sinking but is in danger. Thus, 256 ships were in some kind of danger in the area. I am referring here to deep-sea vessels, but about 190 inshore vessels sent out these two types of signal in the same year. Thus, a total of 446 ships were negotiating with and talking to our radio stations in this country through urgency or distress messages needing urgent attention. Any one of these could have been jammed by interference from these pirate radio stations.
In addition, in the same period, 301 ships' messages were intercepted at these stations from the Continent and other countries. Thus a total of nearly 750 ships in the area sent out messages and many of these could have been jammed by the use of radio channels by pirate radio stations. I am not overstating the case. These are the figures and they show the dangers if we do not support the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this could have happened or that it happened?

Mr. Dobson: I am saying that it could have happened. In that one year, 750 ships could have had their transmissions jammed by pirate radio stations. I know that it did not happen but I say, "Thank goodness that it did not". The danger exists because of the way in which radio wavelengths are being used —perhaps in the way that the hon. Gentleman likes.
Let us not forget also that lifeboats when they put to sea need to keep some sort of contact with the shore. It so happens that they can contact helicopters in distress, working by means of v.h.f., which is not interfered with. But life-boats used the ordinary frequencies 133 times in this period and coastguards complain—my sources, which are very good, can be checked—that they and lifeboats have difficulty from time to time in talking on their internationally agreed radio bands because of interference from nearby radio stations.

Mr. John Cordle: The hon. Gentleman is highlighting the dangers. Can he tell us why there have not been any accidents and why there has not been jamming?

Mr. Dobson: It is because we have been extremely fortunate. The equipment on the pirate stations is not so up to date or so highly specialised that it may not at any time get what is called spurious transmissions in certain bands. It is purely fortuitous that it has not yet happened.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Does not my hon. Friend recall that an R.A.F. helicopter was unable to get in touch with a lifeboat rescuing the crew from a distressed ship off the East Coast?

Mr. Dobson: I did not know that. But the whole radio spectrum and equipment used by the stations could cause interference. That it has not happened in a distress call is fortunate for us but it could happen at any time.
In addition, any ship at sea is entitled to get through by radio, either by radio telephone or by morse working, to the shore, often to discuss with the owner its movements, and here there have been many instances of jamming and interference. Ships, when they have been two


or three miles from the pirate stations, have complained to the Post Office stations that they were having to shift frequencies because of interference. It happened today.
We must also remember that there is nothing to stop, internationally, a ship which needs urgent assistance from using its normal commercial channels to get it. If there is something wrong with the equipment on the main distress channels. the ship is at liberty to use the commercial channel to get the necessary assistance. This is highlighted when I say that the interference on these commercial channels is present today.
I want to turn now to the fact that not only are we damaging and taking chances with our own ships but the international bands I have been talking about are truly international. Any ship of any nationality can use them in any language. We are here not just making a decision to do with British shipping. Our decision will also affect shipping and the lives of people from all over the world. In these circumstances, the Opposition should not oppose the Bill lightly and they should be reminded of the dangers we face. The term "radio pirate" is a pirate term in the lowest sense of the word. He is not the swashbuckling type of pirate that everyone thinks he is, but a dangerous criminal who takes no personal risk of any kind himself. There is, however, risk to the many thousands of people who use our ships both as passengers and crew. We have to consider that when we are dealing with the Bill.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) has given us some interesting examples about safety at sea. I noticed that the Postmaster-General did not on this occasion pray in aid anything to do with safety at sea. Obviously, it is an argument which could not have weighed very heavily with the Government when they decided to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Short: It did.

Mr. Channon: The Postmaster-General says that it did, in which case it is extra-ordinary, if this terrible and appalling risk of life and safety at sea has gone on

all these years, that the Government, who said as long ago as November, 1964, that they would legislate, have allowed this terrible danger to go on for two-and-half years without doing something about it. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East. Rather than criticise hon. Members on this side of the House, he should criticise his own right hon. Friends. If they believe in this great risk to life at sea, they should have legislated a great deal earlier.
I do not pretend to be an expert on broadcasting policy. I represent, as the House will have seen from the Amendment in my name, probably a minority point of view in the House, but although it may be a minority point of view in the House, I think that it represents the majority view in the country, and it certainly is the majority view of my constituents.
I oppose the Bill, largely for the excellent reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan). I should like to tell the House briefly and in as good tempered a way as I can muster that I consider the Government's attitude to be unreasonable, dictatorial, killjoy Socialist pettifogging, repressive nonsense. The House will therefore be able to determine my attitude towards the Bill.
The Postmaster-General made one very significant remark in the course of his speech. He sneered at the Conservative Party's record in introducing independent television, and he rather prided himself on his own meagre record of broadcasting achievement as weighed against the great advantages resulting from the introduction of independent television. What is so extraordinary is that the party opposite, which fought so hard and long against independent television, has done absolutely nothing about it. I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite have not continued to oppose it.

Mr. Short: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Conservative Party did to increase listener or viewer choice between 1952. when it introduced independent television, and 1964?

Mr. Channon: The introduction of independent television in 1955 doubled overnight the viewing possibilities for people in this country. The Conservative


Government did more than this Government have done. They have not even scratched the surface. The Government have done one thing of which I approve, however, and with which I will deal a little later.
Many thousands of my constituents and others want to go on listening to these radio stations, and they are horrified that their entertainment will be taken away before an adequate alternative is provided. I resent the sort of high-minded stuff from the Postmaster-General which I have been compelled to listen to this afternoon. Many intellectuals despise the programmes put out by pirate radio stations but they do not have to listen if they do not want to. I listen to pirate stations on occasion. I enjoy some of their programmes, but not all.
The best thing that the Postmaster-General has done—or it may have been his predecessor—has been to introduce the Music Programme on the B.B.C., and also to begin stereo broadcasting on it. That programme caters extremely well for minority tastes and I hope that it will be expanded a great deal further. But those who enjoy the Music Programme are entitled to enjoy pop radio if they wish. I would like to go on enjoying pop radio, and so would my constituents.
I concede that there is a case against pirate radio stations. Those which lie in territorial waters are not affected by the Bill and the Government could have prosecuted them a good deal earlier if they had wished, but for some extraordinary reason they decided not to do so. Why they did not do so when they were accusing them of causing all this appalling trouble, I cannot imagine. Perhaps we shall be told.
The Minister of Technology breathed a great deal of sound and fury against the pirates, but he handled them with kid gloves. The Postmaster-General, with his experience of whipping in hon. Members opposite, has brought a heavier-handed approach to the matter.
I agree that the pirates are irritating and annoying, and are breaking international agreements. I concede that. Has the Postmaster-General made representation to those other countries which are also breaking international agreements in

the use of wavelengths? I understand that the Voice of America frequently breaks international agreements in this matter. What action has been taken against those countries? What representations have been made about Albania? I know that we do not have diplomatic relations with that country, but what representations have been made about Radio Albania by our colleagues in the Council of Europe?
I am prepared to go so far as to concede that it is impossible for the pirate stations to last for ever, and that for practical and legal reasons some action must be taken. But so often we have from the Socialist Government the stick and not the carrot, and that is what they are providing today. Do we seriously imagine that if the United States of America or Canada were ringed with pirate radio stations, those stations would stay in business long? They would go out of business in a flash, because there is sufficient competition from the commercial radio stations which provide the service which people wish to listen to.
It is, however, untenable that the pirate radio stations should multiply in the future. Hon. Members opposite produced no evidence to show that they cause a danger to shipping. The weakest point in the position of radio stations is their behaviour in regard to copyright. I have no financial or personal interest in commercial radio, but if I had been advising the pirate radio stations, I would have advised them to pay for the copyright. I agree that some do.

Mr. Iremonger: To be fair, Radio Caroline does.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Radio 390 does also. It is situated in my constituency.

Mr. Channon: I have said that some pay copyright. They should all do so. I agree that the situation could be improved.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Does not evidence point to the fact that while some pirate radio stations are paying some copyright, they are paying nothing like the amount they should? Radio 390, about which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has some knowledge, in 1965 paid not one penny, and only a little in 1966.

Mr. Channon: I have said that the copyright position was unsatisfactory.
It is very sad indeed that the Government should have allowed the situation to occur where, when this great new market has been provided, when this great new interest for many thousands and millions of people has been created in the country, they propose to do away with the pirate radio stations and not replace them with anything adequate.
Hon. Members may say that it is unfair to judge in advance but, from what I have heard, I do not think it is likely that the B.B.C. Radio 247 will provide the same sort of service which people have at the moment. It would have been a far better alternative, as my hon. Friend the Member for Howden pointed out, to have had some form of private local commercial radio, not the sort of experiment on v.h.f. which the Government are introducing. If one wanted to kill off an experiment, I would have thought that the Government were setting about it in the right way. The experiment will have to be financed largely out of the rates, and ratepayers will pay for a service which many of them will not be able to get, because very few people own v.h.f. sets. The experiment may cost as much as £1 million a year, but perhaps we can be told exactly what the figure is to be.
There is no doubt that with all their faults the pirates have tapped a new market and have enormously increased the number of people in this country who listen to radio programmes. I have heard the programme in New York which broadcasts nothing but news all day long. Such a programme might have a chance of success in this country. Certainly it is a very good programme in New York. People want a continuously acceptable programme which they can switch on and listen to.
I am also opposed to monopolies wherever they occur, public monopolies or private monopolies. I think that the B.B.C.'s monopoly in sound ought to be fought as it has been fought in vision. The breaking of the monopoly of the B.B.C. in vision has done nothing but good.

Mr. Charles Mapp: It was with great interest that I heard the

hon. Gentleman say that he was opposed to monopoly. Can I take it from that that he is fundamentally opposed to the monopoly on independent television in respect of advertising and that his opposition would lead him in the direction of breaking that monopoly?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I correctly understand what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but if he is arguing that there should be still further competition on independent television, I would not oppose him. Indeed, I would actively welcome that.
One great market which the pirates have tapped, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) said, has been that of people listening to radios in their cars. Very few people will be able to listen to these nine experimental local radio stations on their car radios; or can the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us whether it is likely that we shall be able to have car radios capable of receiving v.h.f. transmissions? If they exist now, they do so in very small numbers.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that anyone with a car radio can get music on it from wherever in the country it comes.

Mr. Channon: But not from the local stations which will be on v.h.f. I cannot get it on my car radio. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is more fortunate than I am.
I recognise that in the end the pirates ought to go, but I oppose the implementation of the Bill now, because the Government should first have provided an adequate alternative. The alternative which they are suggesting is not much good. Instead of getting an adequate local service, for which they would not have to pay because it would have been commercially based, the ratepayers will have to pay. I consider that the Bill will deprive many of my constituents of a great deal of pleasure. They are rightly angry at this deprivation of their pleasure. The consumer, in this case the listener, comes first. Because that is my attitude, I shall have the very greatest possible pleasure in voting for the Amendment tonight.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. John Ryan: There is a parallel between this debate and that on the Press last Wednesday in terms of the interaction of Government legislation and the valid choice of consumers. I strongly support the Bill which will seek to put the pirate radio stations Out of business. Like the Postmaster-General, I find it incredible that the Conservative Party, which at one time had claims to represent law and stability in society, should have tended to open the way to equivocating on this narrow issue of whether this country should uphold internationally binding commitments and pursue the policy which right hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves once agreed, although they no longer do so. That is terribly sad.
Hon. Members opposite have said that before the pirates go out of business, there should be an alternative which is acceptable to the mass of the people. I agree that the pirate have shown that, with its monopoly in sound broadcasting, the B.B.C. has not provided programmes which have appealed to a significant proportion of the listening audience and they have shown that there is a group of people not sufficiently satisfied with the programmes provided by the B.B.C.
I have often wondered what was meant by the phrase "public service broadcasting". I know that it has connotations of social responsibility and connotations of maintaining adequate choice and adequate balance. The difficulty of a definition of "public service broadcasting" which includes minority appeal broadcasting and excludes the choice of the majority of the people who are levied to provide it is not adequate in the global sense of "responsibility" or of the meaning of "public service".
Having said that, I welcome my right hon. Friend's introduction of the experiment of local radio stations, although I have some doubts about it, particularly about the financing. Many of us are quite clear in our opposition to the pirates and clear in our wholehearted support of the Government tonight, but we have doubts about the nature of the experiment and the nature of the suggested alternative. I have difficulty in understanding clearly from paragraph 41 of the White Paper from where the funds will he available to provide a valid experi-

ment. The difficulty is that many of the organisations which are listed are not famous for their riches and some who might be attracted into local radio and make it meaningful would find it difficult to participate because sponsorship might be inherent in their participation. For instance, the Automobile Association is a clear example of an organisation which could have a strong local appeal, because it could provide local programmes geared to local traffic conditions, but, because of the conditions laid down in the White Paper, it might have difficulties about sponsorship.
I have some sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) who said that to have a variety of choice one ought to have a variety of sources providing choice. But this is based on the assumption that if there is a variety of sources, one can have a variety of choices. However, that does not always work out. The hon. Gentleman quoted Manx Radio and I agree that there is a qualitative difference between that and other stations, but certainly in Australia and in some parts of the United States the hon. Gentleman will find that, although there is a wide variety of local stations, that does not guarantee choice.
The Conservative Party is extremely muddled on this subject and the muddle stems from the Conservative Party conference and the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) which showed clearly that the Conservative idea of local radio consisted largely of six or seven radio stations purveying different tunes at the same time, but otherwise offering no choice. That seems to be the extent of their thinking on local radio.

Mr. Rowland: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Party is not muddled on this issue but has deliberately decided on the policy of introducing commercial radio to this country?

Mr. Ryan: To some extent, I subscribe to that view. I hope that a Conservative Front Bench spokesman will make several narrow points in the debate and tell us what the Conservatives would do about the alternative to the pirates and perhaps agree that this debate is taking place on a nonsense and that we should not be debating the wide range of broadcasting


policy, but discussing whether it is not illegal and, in a sense, immoral and certainly dangerous for the pirates to continue. That hon. Members opposite are prepared to debate wider questions on this narrow Bill is a reflection of their muddled thinking and dubiety on this matter.
Some of us had hoped that in his review of the alternatives to the pirates the Postmaster-General would consider a national public service and certainly local radio services outside the scope of the B.B.C. I want to be quite clear about this. Many of us would not like the authority and power of the B.B.C. to be diminished in any way and we would not like anything to be taken from the B.B.C. except its monopoly in sound broadcasting. I fail to see how the power and strength of the BB.C., which lie in objectivity, its fertility of ideas and its technical application, can be equated in any sense with its monopoly position, or be said to be derived from it. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has left the door open and has indicated that, although the B.B.C. will supervise this experiment, there is no guarantee, and nor should it be implied, that the B.B.C. will necessarily get the final authority over the local radio stations which may emerge as a result of the experiment.
Another important point is that the fact that the B.B.C. is controlling the experiment and the nature of the financing of the experiment must have some strong effect on its conclusions and results. I cannot see why, if the Postmaster-General wants to keep this door open and to leave himself with the options of providing a service perhaps outside the B.B.C., he does not allow a matched sample of local radio stations, provided equally by the B.B.C. and some other body; perhaps financed differently or with different terms of reference. This would enable more meaningful conclusions to be drawn.
In this experiment the results may be prejudiced by the form in which it is carried out, by the financing of it and by the choice of the organisation. I cannot see the value of excluding in the experimental stages another possibility, which in the White Paper, the Postmaster-General claimed that he would like to see. Eventually we may have to come to this sort of experiment.

Mr. Bryan: Would the hon. Gentleman like to expand a little more on this other possibility, which is not the B.B.C. and is not commercial, but is something else?

Mr. Ryan: The hon. Gentleman anticipates. I want to indicate what some of us feel should be considered as a alternative to the B.B.C. for sound broadcasting. It is an authority which would derive some of its income from advertising revenue, but which would not necessarily have the same structure as local commercial radio stations in other parts of the world, and certainly not the same structure as the pirates. I believe that the Postmaster-General would agree that what determines the product of a radio station, or any means of communication, is its capitalisation, the control over it, the rules within which it works.
I do not call them restrictions—this is an emotive expression. Any organisation has to have rules. The source of financing of that means of communication is less important. I know that in the past with independent television we have seen vast fortunes made, sometimes with an absence of a variety of programmes from the different sources. We have seen matching this pursuing of the mass audience across the whole evening, programmes reflecting in many ways the lowest common denominator of taste, instead of programmes tending to aggregate audiences, programmes going right across the board. We have seen what some of us would consider was an unhappy situation developing with independent television but this does not necessarily exclude for all time the possibility of local radio being financed through commercial sources within the proper context.
The Postmaster-General does himself a disservice if he closes these options now. I am not advocating this dogmatically; I am saying that it is something which we have still to consider, and that there are other matters to be looked at, another area to explore. I hope that the Government will remain flexible on this point and initiate experiments of this sort, to see if this is a valid possibility.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend meaning that there will be any alteration, in his view, in the main


sound programmes of B.B.C., the Light Programme, for example, as one of the means of financing this?

Mr. Ryan: No. My basic view is that people in broadcasting and in the Press should be enthusiastic about what they do. I would never support any situation in which the B.B.C. was compelled to do something that it did not want to do, such as taking advertising revenue. I do not want to diminish the power of the B.B.C. All that I am saying is that some of us do not have this pathological antipathy towards commercial revenue as a means of providing some form of local radio.
Many of us are sceptical when we look at paragraph 41. I defy any hon. Member on this side of the House to tell me where the money comes from, in terms of flesh and blood and hard cash. Is it coming from the rates? I do not have the same obsession about keeping rates down as hon. Members opposite. Rates are used for many purposes in the community, to raise the level of that community, and if local radio has something to say to the community it is valid that it should receive a subvention from the rates.
To take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). I do not see a situation in which the B.B.C.'s authority or control over the form of revenue which it decides upon should in any way be diminished. It is a great source of sadness to me that this debate should occur tonight, because it is tragic that the Conservative Party has sunk so far as to oppose the Bill. I know that it has argued that it has a reasoned Amendment, but that Amendment rejects a Second Reading for a Bill which honours international commitments and adds to the safety of shipping and traffic in our coastal waters.
The party opposite is most equivocal in this situation and it must answer this question at some point in the debate. By taking an equivocal attitude toward the pirates is it saying that it accepts that the pirates steal wavelengths, other people's property in terms of the rights of musicians and technicians? If it accepts that this is wrong would it have introduced a Bill to stop it; or, if it

does not, is it saying that one should, when one sees a burglar entering one's house, give licence to /that burglar and elevate him legislatively? It is sad that it has expressed such muddled thinking on this issue by seeking to oppose the Bill. I hope that many will retrieve their political reputations by abstaining from voting tonight.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan) had to say, and I warmly agree with him that variety is lacking and could be lacking in any future B.B.C. programmes produced as an alternative to commercial radio. This has been one of the arguments used by the young who have been to see their Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. They have said that the pirates provide not only variety but flexibility. It is true that this Bill will affect millions of listeners throughout the country. We have all received letters and deputations about this, and, no matter what may be their political allegiance, our debate will have a bearing upon the views of the young. I was interested in the way in which the Postmaster-General introduced the Bill.
I thought how absolutely "not with it" he was. If only he would get in touch with the young and hear what they have to say about commercial radio and these off-shore radio stations, he would appreciate why the alternatives that we are putting forward in our reasoned Amendment should be adhered to and thought about. The Bill is before the House simply because the Government have lamentably failed to provide an alternative. As time goes on, and since they came into power, the radio pirates, so-called, have taken advantage of the situation and set up business, and we cannot blame them for that.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) drew attention to the dangers. The obvious reason why there have been no accidents is that the people in charge of the stations are responsible people and they make quite certain that whatever frequency they use, it is not being used by any local shipping, aircraft and the like. I hold no brief whatever for commercial radio as such,


and hope that the Government will have second thoughts and accept this reasoned Amendment. If ever there was a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face for ideological motives, this is it. In essence, the Government propose to close down a service which has grown up in response to a public demand, which is not immoral or in any way unsavoury.

Mr. Alan Williams: At the beginning of his speech the hon. Gentleman said that it was important that we should think of the impression which the House gave to the young. Surely it is extremely important that one impression which we should give is that we do not bow to every wave of letters which come to us and that we stand out for that which is honest? Hon. Members opposite have admitted that it is basically dishonest that proper copyright is not being paid.

Mr. Cordle: I do not accept that. We have to listen to what the young require. I am happy in my mind that until a proper alternative is created, young people should profit by commercial radio.
It might be helpful to return to first principles and ask why the pirate radio stations were set up in the first place. The owners of these stations do not invest millions of pounds in equipment merely to keep the electronics industry happy. The advertisers using the stations, which include some of our largest and most successful companies, do not allocate money from their advertising budgets as part of a rash philanthropic gesture or to cock a snook at the Government. The owners of the stations and the advertisers on the programmes are spending their money to meet a demand which has never even been satisfied and, one might almost say, which has never even been recognised by the State monopoly broad-casting service.
This is not a new phenomenon. Radio Luxembourg, which is providing similar programmes to those of the pirates from foreign soil, has been popular for decades, as have, to a lesser extent, a number of other Continental stations. Even the American Forces Network has had its devoted coterie of listeners ever since the war, because it provides the sort of programmes at times when people want them, and the B.B.C. will not.
Because the pirates are an undoubted success, we have seen in recent years a very large increase in numbers of stations around our coastline, and this has undoubtedly caused problems. The growing problem of interference with ship-shore radio traffic is real, as is the interference which the pirates cause to certain continental stations. The 1948 Copenhagen plan, which allocates frequencies, is ignored by more than 50 per cent. of long- and medium-wave broad-casting stations in Europe.
But I am well aware that two wrongs do not make a right, and this is no excuse or reason for the pirates to plant the plan with impunity. If on technical grounds this was the main case against the pirates and there was no feasible alternative, then most reasonable people would support the Bill. However, the Government are well aware—if they are not, there are plenty of skilled broadcasting engineers to tell them—that there is a workable, viable alternative which would satisfy the public, the operators, the advertisers, and even the Government if they were not so hidebound by their devotion to rigid State monopolies and to which the merest whiff of commerce or competition is anathema.
Commercial stations could come ashore and be licensed for a trial period if need be. There should be safeguards as to their ownership, programme content and the technical features of their transmitters, but this should present no difficulty since the system already works well in practice with the commercial television companies.
The problems of interference can be overcome in several ways: first, by using directional aerials so that a whole region or other transmitters are not swamped. This is frequently done by commercial stations in the United States and works very effectively. Transmitters in the eastern half of this country could be beamed westwards with virtually no interference with the Continent. It has been estimated that up to 12 medium low-power stations could be operated on the same frequency in the United Kingdom quite satisfactorily. Secondly, due to variations in radio reception between day and night, it is possible to allow many more medium low-power stations to operate on the Copenhagen frequencies during


the day. These stations could then switch to V.H.F. transmissions at night.
Thirdly, public authorities, the police and public services, could have a fresh look at their use of wavelengths, particularly on the v.h.f. bands. Perhaps the Minister would confirm or deny that public authorities occupy no less than 64 per cent. of the available space in the v.h.f. bands. This is a very high proportion.
Therefore, by a constructive approach to the problems of air space, it should be possible to ensure that virtually all the country could be covered by an alternative competitive commercial radio system, local in character, which would not cause national or international interference. Such a system would be a logical and legal extension of the present pirates. It would prevent the absurdity of unsuitable vessels being dotted around our shores providing hazards to their operators and other shipping. It would provide competition, which I think is very healthy, to the B.B.C. at no cost to the taxpayer or licence payer. Heaven knows we hear enough about the shaky state of the B.B.C.'s finances. Most important of all, it would give the people of this country something that many of them really want and like. In a very real sense it can be of benefit to the teenagers, housewives or motorists. They would be able legally to exercise their choice between the B.B.C., foreign stations like Luxembourg and their local commercial stations. Is this so very wrong?
This problem has been with us for several years. I have studied the 1966 Labour Party election manifesto, but I can find nothing in it about behaving in this killjoy manner. Page 10 of the manifesto referred to "waging a vigorous antimonopoly policy." I do not see how that lines up with the Bill. It is symptomatic of this killjoy Government that once more the gentleman in Whitehall knows best.
Whether it is in broadcasting, education, transport or steel, the Government's aim is to eliminate competition, restrict choice and to revert to the Freudian streak which regards anything remotely commercial or profitable as downright immoral. But the longer term implications behind the Bill—and how the Minister must wish

that he could get his hands on Radio Luxembourg—are that monopoly of broadcasting is evil in its restriction of freedom, is inefficient in its failure to exploit new skills and resources, is costly in its administrative bureaucracy and runs the real danger of largely failing to provide what the customer really wants.
Over 20 years ago a former Director-General of the B.B.C., Sir Frederick Ogilvy, said in a letter to The Times:
Monopoly of broadcasting is inevitably a negation of freedom, no matter how efficiently it is run, or how wise and kindly the Board or Committees in charge of it. It denies freedom of choice to listeners. It denies freedom of employment to speakers, musicians, writers, actors and all who seek their chance on the air. The dangers of monopoly have long been recognised in the film industry and the Press, and the theatre, and active steps have been taken to prevent it. In tolerating monopoly of broadcasting we are alone among the democratic countries of the world.
That was dated 26th June, 1946.
It is for these reasons that the Government's whole policy is ill considered and dangerous and why I shall vote against the Bill.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: We have listened to a most extraordinary and, I should have thought, muddled speech from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle). I find it quite incredible that the hon. Gentleman should, apparently, go so far as to advocate the continuance of the pirate stations. If his speech meant anything, that is what it meant, subject only to the question of safety at sea and one or two other small matters. He believes that the Bill should be turned down. Other hon. Members opposite are trying their own kind of political game and exercise, but the hon. Gentleman is entirely opposed to the Bill and wants the pirate stations to continue, in spite of the clear declaration by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General about the international engagements to which we are committed. I find this a fantastic situation.
What is more, not long ago, during the last debate on broadcasting policy, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said quite clearly that the pirate stations were derogatory to government. I agree with him absolutely. But to the


hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite this does not matter one little bit. The engagements which have been entered into by Her Majesty's Government, with, we understood, the approbation and support of the Opposition, are now to be cast aside. This does not matter, but the commercial interests which lie behind hon. and right hon. Members opposite do matter. All kinds of international engagements can be brushed aside and the wider public interest equally brushed aside in order that another commercial lobby shall establish its will.

Mr. Cordle: I made clear in my opening remarks that I hold no brief for the pirates. I went on to say that a reasoned Amendment is what we require. I referred, I think twice, to the alternatives of which we on this side of the House are in favour.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to hon. Members on this side of the House as being motivated by commercial considerations. Is that kind of sneer in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I think an hon. Member is entitled to interpret speeches made by other hon. Members, but he is not entitled to attribute improper motives.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In the circumstances, should not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark?

Mr. Alan Williams: Since when has it been in order for those on the Conservative benches not to be commercially motivated?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I have no intention of withdrawing what I said. I made no imputation against an individual hon. Member. I made clear that the whole Opposition was clearly influenced by commercial lobby activity in this way as has previously been the case. This matter has been fully documented and a great deal of research has been done into the way in which advertising on television was introduced to the country. One should not blind one's eyes to it. I should have thought hon. Members opposite would have welcomed the imputation, if that is what they regarded it as being. There can surely be no doubt about the influences

which have been at work. I think it highly discreditable when this Bill lays down the means by which pirate stations should be abolished, to spread propaganda for this particular lobby.

Mr. O'Malley: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), will he notice that the hon. Member said that musicians should have freedom of choice of employment? Will he tell the hon. Member, who does not seem to know much about the subject, that there is no employment of musicians by the pirate radio stations?

Mr. Blenkinsop: This has been clear. Very naturally the Musicians' Union, which represent professional musicians in this country, has felt deeply about it. If the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch does not pay any regard to international engagements, perhaps he will pay some regard to the question of copyright and other issues which have been so vigorously stressed.

Mr. Cordle: So far as concerns copyright, I understand that the Musicians' Union is very well satisfied with what arrangements it has been able to make——

Mr. O'Malley: Nonsense.

Mr. Cordle: —though perhaps not with all radio stations.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I never heard a more inaccurate statement in this House. There is not a word of truth in that. It is absolutely untrue. [HON. MEMBERS: "With-draw.-] The Musicians' Union, as is well known, has been campaigning continuously without any let up at all against the pirate radio stations. It has been making very clear to hon. Members and everyone how completely on principle and in every detail it is opposed to these stations.

Mr. O'Malley: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but does he know that the Musicians' Union receives not a penny from the pirate stations?

Mr. Cordle: The copyright has been satisfied so far as the union is concerned. I was in touch with one particular offshore station and heard from it that that was the case.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is clear from where the hon. Member gets his information.


It is from a group of people whose record has been not particularly attractive I should have thought from the kind of publicity they attracted in the country and in some of the cases involved. They are the very people from whom the hon. Member takes his information. He said in his interruption that he understood that the Musicians' Union was satisfied with the position. Has he taken the trouble to inquire of the Musicians' Union? Has he written a letter or telephoned to the union, or taken any measure to find out? I invite him to reply.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)rose——

Mr. Blenkinsop: Do not interrupt now.

Mr. Cordle: To be absolutely honest, no, I have not.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I understand from the Musicians' Union that every hon. Member has had a letter from the union. I have had one and every hon. Member I have spoken to on the subject has had one. Perhaps the letter received by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) went into the wastepaper basket.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is quite shocking that hon. Members should make statements which are absolutely inaccurate and so well known to be inaccurate. This casts doubt on everything else the hon. Member has said. I was amazed when the hon. Member said that the B.B.C. fails to provide what the public want. Inquiries show that during the period when the pirate stations have been most active the main listening public has still been listening to the Light Programme of the B.B.C. The percentage of those listening to B.B.C. programmes has been roughly 69 per cent., whereas those listening to the pirate stations have comprised in the region of 16 per cent. These are the kind of figures which give an accurate impression of the situation.
The rather amazing fact is that the size of the listening public for the B.B.C. Light Programme has increased while the pirate radio stations have been in operation. If there is to be any suggestion of any action which would reduce the services of the B.B.C., we would not

merely be causing inconvenience to some who want to continue a pop programme but more than inconvienence—a real loss —to very large numbers of the population including many older people as well as younger people.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman has questioned the source of the information obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle). Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he got the information about 69 per cent.?

Mr. Blenkinsop: There is no secrecy about this. Unlike other items of information, this has been published by the B.B.C. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, and it is not challenged at all. It was published two or three months ago and it was not challenged by anyone.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about inaccuracy, but that is grievously inaccurate. This was challenged particularly by the N.O.P., and demolished. He should not be so ready to challenge the statements of my hon. Friend if he makes such inaccurate statements.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It was accurate in the sense that the B.B.C. published the findings of an independent survey which, I suggest, represents a broadly accurate picture of the situation. I agree that different views are held. I am merely saying that the information was provided; and I do not accept that this argument has been shot down. It is utterly wrong for the impression to be given that the pirates have captured anything but a very small part of the audience of the B.B.C. The overwhelming majority of the public wants to listen to the B.B.C's sound programmes.
It is extraordinary that any hon. Gentleman opposite should criticise the B.B.C. for denying freedom of speech. We gather, from some of the criticisms voiced by hon. Gentlemen opposite at Question Time, that the B.B.C. allows too much freedom of speech. To be fair, some of my hon. Friends also have complained that the B.B.C., far from being an old aunty, allows too much freedom of speech.

Sir John Rodgers: Can the hon. Gentleman recall a time when the B.B.C. has put on a programme revealing the weakness of the monopoly position of the B.B.C.? Is not that a denial of free speech? Should not the other side be allowed to state its case?

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that I.T.A. and the other commercial television stations have never been known to allow a discussion of the influence of advertising on commercial television?

Mr. Blenkinsop: In all probability both have been restrictive in this matter. I do not know.

Mr. John Page: Mr. John Pagerose——

Mr. Blenkinsop: If I continually give way this speech will not be my own. I must get on, for many hon. Members wish to contribute to the discussion.
The Bill gives the Government authority to make the pirates illegal. I agree, therefore, that one must consider what, if anything, is needed to replace the pirates when they have gone. One must be careful, when considering this matter, to discover what additional demand, if any, exists. That such a demand does exist has still to be proven. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to ensure that if the pirate stations are closed down—and from their remarks it would seem that they not only do not want them to be closed down but want the present situation to prevail—their place is taken by commercial stations financed by advertising.
This is an important issue. One reason why so many people are opposed to this proposal is because they fear that the real attraction for the advertisers would be a national sound programme. The possibility of getting large sums of money out of local radio stations on v.h.f. appears highly unrealistic. It is almost certain, therefore, that whereas the first stage of the campaign of the commercial interests and advertisers is concerned with local stations, the objective will be to attempt to take from the B.B.C. one of its national sound wavelengths. That would be attractive to the advertisers, although it would inevitably lead to the destruction of programme choice as we know it today for the vast majority of people in Britain.
It must be remembered that such a state of affairs would not only be far more costly for the B.B.C. in its attempts to carry on such stations as were allowed to it, but that additional capital expenditure would be involved that could not be contemplated now. More important, the quality of programmes made available by the B.B.C. would inevitably be depressed. The range of opportunity for "live" musicians, which should be encouraged, would be lessened and there would be an increased amount of "needle time". This is one of the major reasons why so many people are opposed to methods which may, at first sight, seem attractive for the financing of local stations. We need not go into this issue in great detail now, but it must be borne in mind.
The offer of the B.B.C. to ensure that the needs and demands of the public are, as far as possible, fully met, is a reasonable one. It involves wider opportunity for hearing popular music. I am not simply referring to pop music, as it is now regarded, but to a wide range of choice of light music of all types on 247 metres.
It is important to note that the B.B.C. is not contemplating replacing the pirates by a completely equivalent programme. That is not the proposal and it could not be the case for copyright and other reasons. The Musicians' Union would not agree to that amount of recorded music being broadcast. The B.B.C. has a greater understanding of the public's needs and demands. It appreciates that a wide range of light music is required by people of all ages. That demand will be met in the somewhat extended service which the B.B.C. will make available while, at the same time, the opportunity will be retained, for those who do not necessarily want to tune in to light music, to have varied programmes such as those now broadcast on the light programme on the 1500-meter band. Only by ensuring that the B.B.C. can carry out its proposed changes will we be certain that not just one group of people in the community has its needs and demands met but that the broadcasting interests of the nation as a whole are satisfied.
While I understand that some of my hon. Friends think that local broadcasting stations might be run on a different basis, I suggest that the proposals in the White


Paper offer an encouraging opportunity for a realistic experiment to be carried out. I see no reason why those who wish to carry out that experiment—and there are many—should be denied the opportunity of doing so. If, after the experience of that work, it is felt that something more should be done, then that will be the moment to do it.
I still find it difficult to understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite who, when their party was in office, did much of the preliminary work to achieve the international agreement to which my right hon. Friend referred, are now attempting to tear it up.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I deprecate some of the remarks which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) made when he suggested that the whole of the Opposition are motivated by commercial interests. The House must remember that when we had our great arguments on the Bill setting up the I.T.A. in 1964, the electorate had decided that it did not want the hon. Gentleman, and he was not here. It was far from obvious then that many Members of the Conservative Party in this House were motivated by anything other than an interest in service for the consumer. As the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time, I invite him to read some of those debates, after which I am sure that he will seek to apologise for those very ungenerous comments, not only to this side of the House but to the House as a whole.
As the Postmaster-General said, when we were in office we began the task of dealing with what is obviously a situation which cannot he tolerated for much longer. However, it was obvious that if we took steps to bring in legislation of our own without agreement with other European nations, it could easily have been abortive, because the offending vessels could have received their servicing from other European countries.
It was for that reason that we asked the Council of Europe seriously to consider drafting an agreement which each of the nations of Europe would ratify and agree to bring in their own domestic legislation to make sure that all pirate radio ships were denied supplies, services and ad-

vertisements and, as a result, would die. The agreement was signed in January, 1965, when the present Government were in office. It is now a long time since 1965, when all the signatory nations agreed solemnly that, at the earliest possible moment, they would bring in their own domestic legislation to carry out the terms of that agreement.
Since then, Denmark and Sweden have taken the necessary legislative action. Holland is dealing with it by a more summary type of action. We are the only signatory subject to the problem which still has no domestic legislation. This Bill is late, and it should be given every possible support, even if I castigate the Postmaster-General for being late in bringing it forward.
It may be asked if there is any truth in the statements that the pirate radios are satisfying a need. With the large audiences that they have, obviously they are satisfying a need, but they are doing it by breaching internationally agreed wavelengths, denying proper payment to artists, and infringing copyright. None of us can give any serious support to that.
By their very nature, no control can be exercised over them. There have been certain ad hoc arrangements made whereby one or two stations have tried to make sure that they pay certain copyright fees. However, at present, those affected, be they artists or owners of copyright, have no recourse to the courts to claim their just rights against the pirates. The fact that they operate virtually on 100 per cent. "needle" time results in an intolerable situation which should be ended as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to some B.B.C. programmes, and there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned with the standard of certain of them. In such cases, at least we have a voice in the matter. We can complain to the Postmaster-General if we believe that there is a bad content in a B.B.C. or an I.T.A. programme. We can take the matter up with him and hope that he or the authorities will take the necessary action.
Whatever we may feel about the programmes of the pirates, we have no say in what shall be the content of their programmes. Some time ago, it was


announced that Screaming Lord Sutch planned to give readings from pornographic novels. In present circumstances, there was nothing that this House or anyone else could have done to prevent it. That is another reason why we should take action as soon as possible to deal with the pirates.

Mr. O'Malley: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one point? It is generally thought that performers receive some kind of payment when a record is broadcast. That is not the case, whether the record is broadcast by the B.B.C. or by anyone else. In the present state of the law, the performer gets nothing at all.

Mr. Mawlay: I am sorry if I gave the House the wrong impression. I accept that while top musical artists can come to an arrangement with their record companies to receive royalties for records which are played, the musicians who provide the backing to a record are paid only for the time spent making the recording and for rehearsal time.
The important point to bear in mind is that these stations can have up to 100 per cent. of "needle" time, which means that the musician suffers twice in that he receives no additional payment when a record is played and, because it is played, he is not called upon to produce live music.
There are those who believe that there ought to be some change in agreements between the Musicians' Union and the various broadcasting authorities. However, we should not concern ourselves with that today, because the Musicians' Union and the various authorities are in contact with one another and can discuss any changes which should take place. There is no way in which these bodies can have any contact with or control over those who operate pirate stations.
Another matter about which there has been a great deal of argument is the suggestion that the pirates steal wavelengths which have been allocated to others. But it is not just a question of stealing wavelengths. Unless they have skilled engineers and reasonably good equipment, there is a danger of "wandering", creating harmonics and so interfering with other wavelengths some distance away from their own positions.
It is important to realise that this is an ever-present danger. I think that all of us in this House would be very sorry if we heard that there had been an interference in air control or in shipping which had led to the loss of life. It is only because the equipment would appear to be fairly new, and because these stations have reasonably good engineers, that this sort of thing has not happened, but this should not take our eyes off the fact that it is possible for this sort of thing to happen at any time. While they remain illegal organisations, there is no way in which we can require them to employ engineers of a certain standard. We just have to hope that they will use the right type of equipment, and employ the right type of engineers.
My hon. Friends have put down an Amendment with which I have a certain amount of sympathy. The difficulty is that if we face the facts, we realise that there can never be an exact alternative to the pirate stations. It is because they are pirates, and are able to break the law and to break agreements, or not even to enter into them, that they can put on the type of programmes which they provide.
We are in some difficulty about the availability of wavelengths, Until recently the B.B.C. always maintained that it was impossible to put on any sort of programme other than those which it was providing because of a shortage of wavelengths. Suddenly the B.B.C. found it possible to put out a programme of popular music on 247 metres. In other words, the B.B.C. was able to shuffle the wavelengths about in such a way that it was able to provide a different service from those which it gave us before.
The pirate stations have acted as a lever. They have caused the B.B.C. to ask itself why it was losing listeners, and whether the type of programme which it was putting over was providing a wide enough choice, and also whether it was putting out the type of programme which its listeners wanted to hear. This is one of the problems of every monopoly. A monopoly fails to realise that changes occur in the requirements and needs of its customers. It is usually very slow to change its attitudes and its ways, and at least the pirates have been instrumental in causing the B.B.C. to pull up its socks and to provide a programme to which


no doubt many people will never listen but which is, nevertheless, in part an alternative to the programmes provided by the pirates.
The fact that there is a shortage of medium wavelength bands means that any further services must be provided on v.h.f. The B.B.C. says—I do not know on what evidence—that one home in three in this country has a radio set capable of receiving v.h.f. This may be so. If it is, obviously we have a real nucleus for the test local radio stations, but I doubt whether many of the transistors which youngsters take down to the beach, or many car radios, are capable of receiving v.h.f. The important thing is to publicise this, and I was happy to hear the Postmaster-General say that it is now possible to produce transistor radios capable of receiving v.h.f. at a price which most people will regard as reasonable. This will give them a much wider choice of programmes in the future.

Mr. Short: With regard to car radios, does not the hon. Gentleman think that most motorists will be travelling outside their own communities, and that the programme which will meet their needs is the national music programme? I imagine that this programme which will be picked up on most car radios.

Mr. Mawby: Obviously this is one of the programmes which motorists will want to receive, but I think we are losing sight of the fact that people want a wider choice of programmes than they have ever had before. This is what they are looking for, and when one travels in a car in an area where these pirates can be heard, it is amazing just how much chaps twiddle the dial to find out which programme is on which station, merely because they want the widest possible choice.
The fact that the Government have taken so long to bring this Bill to the House suggests that they were—and still are—worried lest it was an unpopular Measure. My postbag—and I suppose this is true of many hon. Members—suggests that if it is, it will be because so many people were dissatisfied with the services they got before the pirates came in.
I am therefore worried about paragraph 34 of the White Paper. It gives the game away completely by pointing out that it

is not a question of wavelengths or any of these other things which concern the Government. Referring to the Pilkington Committee, the White Paper says:
They"—
that is the Government—
consider that this objective would prove incompatible with the commercial objectives of companies engaging in local sound broadcasting; and that, in the result, the former would be likely to suffer.
This is bigotry at its worst, because the assumption is that none of the requirements would, or could, be met by a commercially operated station, and yet the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan) put forward a suggestion which was about half way between the two, between the true commercial station and the B.B.C.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am the hon. Member for Putney, not for Uxbridge.

Mr. Mawby: I know that the hon. Gentleman has advanced this view before, but it was the hon. Member for Uxbridge who earlier today put forward the same sort of view. He took the view that it does not matter how a service is financed; it is how it is controlled that really matters. This is a point on view which is nowhere near the view expressed in the White Paper, and I therefore ask the Government to make certain that there is as wide a choice as possible, because this is really what is needed.
The suggestion in the White Paper that the B.B.C. should go round with a hat—this is really what it amounts to—to pay for local broadcasting services is, I believe, a bad way of dealing with a completely new service. It is obvious that it will end up with a charge being made upon the rates, and the question will then arise whether, in accepting this sort of money, the B.B.C. can carry out the terms of its Charter, which lays down strict rules against sponsorship of any description.
Having said all that, I must say that I do not believe that I would be justified in taking a step which would in any way suggest that I oppose the provisions of the Bill.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who has made a courageous and well-informed contribution to the debate—I hope that this will


not embarrass him—which has been a credit to the House. There are a few points on which I shall venture to disagree with him, but his general approach is one which it would have been helpful to have had from the Opposition Front Bench. One can understand a certain amount of confusion among hon. Members opposite who are not so close to the problem as is the hon. Member for Totnes. The Opposition Front Bench told its back benches, simultaneously, on the one hand that the Government were wrong not to introduce this Measure earlier, and, on the other—in the terms of the Motion—that the Bill should be put off indefinitely. This is an awkward situation for hon. Members opposite to face, and so far the hon. Member for Totnes is the only one who has.
What do the Opposition want? Do they want the Government to act in this matter, or do they not? I suspect that their position is the same as it was in 1964, before they lost office, when they said that they were going to do something about the pirates but put off action indefinitely. Nothing would have been done until the pirates were so firmly established that it would have been much more difficult to handle the situation. I agree that the Government have been tardy in this respect, but at least they have now reformed and are coming up to scratch. It would have become the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) to recognise this fact and not try to face both ways, which has only resulted in confusing his hon. Friends.
The background of some—not all—of these pirate stations is very dubious. For example, although Radio 390 is now operated by a company which is as respectable as any company can be which operates outside the law and breaks it as well, the background behind the company, in the days before the present "respectable" owners took over, was one of violence on at least two occasions. The case in which that violence culminated in homicide represents the tip of a big iceberg.
We could examine more than one pirate station and find a background which is a bit smelly. This is not so in every case, but in a reasonable number of cases anyone who examines the situation feels that he is entering an area in which there

is the dank stench of gangsterism. Therefore, the pirates must go, and I hope that when it comes to the question hon. Members opposite will conclude that they are on the side of law and order and that a number of them at least will demonstrate that fact in the Lobbies tonight.
There are two evils to be fought in the world of information and entertainment. One is monopoly and the other is commercialism. I believe that monopoly is as bad as commercialism, which I do not think can be mitigated. If only one newspaper were left it would be little consolation that it was a Government newspaper, or was run under licence by a non-profit-distributing trust. In this world choice and variety are vital, and the B.B.C. monopoly of sound radio is bad in itself. Even though the Corporation does its best to reduce the evil consequences of monopoly in respect of the listener, it does not succeed in the case of the broadcaster.
The man who has done more than anything to preserve the monopoly situation of the B.B.C. is my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I am sorry that he is not here. I can only assume that he is determined that future broadcasters shall be as miserably underpaid as he was, during the years when he was the chief adviser to our people on most social questions in the "Can I Help You?" series of broadcasts—a duty which he discharged admirably every week for a fee so wretched that if he had had no other source of income he himself would nearly have been eligible for National Assistance. If he were here now I doubt whether he would deny that.
That is what happens if an employer is in a monopoly position in a field in which the product is not a material necessity, like coal or steel, but an ephemeral article like a piece of information, the expression of opinion, or the sound of music. What is it that has moved my right hon. Friend and, still more strangely, the Musicians' Union into the position of cherishing and defending the monster which keeps them manacled in a position of semi-starvation? Is it that they are afraid—that they have decided to prefer the devil they know? The documents circulated by the Musicians' Union makes the mistake of thinking that the cause it serves is advanced by saying that there are Members on this side of


the House who are in favour of coxmmercial radio. I believe that to be quite untrue. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends is in favour of commercial radio.

Mr. Mapp: I hope that I can catch the eye of the Chair later on in order to deploy an argument which is exactly the opposite of that which is being deployed at the moment.

Mr. Jenkins: I stand corrected. I should have recalled that my hon. Friend occupies a distinguished solus position among hon. Members on this side of the House.
What some of us sought to do was to argue the case for the acceptance of advertising revenue by a competing public service corporation. This was the last thing that the commercial radio lobby wanted. They knew, even if the Musicians' Union did not, that this would have created a situation in sound radio that would have killed their hopes of gaining control of sound radio stone dead. The chance has gone, and it is a pity, but before we leave this matter and consider what is now proposed I want to make the point that all Socialists should know that what determines the nature of an organisation is not the source of its revenue but who owns it.
The source of revenue of coal and steel organisations is and will be the same before and after nationalisation. This is not what the struggle is about; it is on the question of who owns what. If Socialists do not know that, I can tell them that capitalists do.

Mr. O'Malley: It it not really a question of who has influence on what? If we have a public service broadcast which puts on advertising—which I would call a form of commercial radio—all the experience that we have leads us to believe that the commercial interests paying for the advertising will expect—and would certainly get, in the medium term—a large amount of influence on the content and type of service provided by that public service.

Mr. Jenkins: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) that everything depends upon the nature of the body which controls the

organisation. I.T.V. is influenced by the advertisers, and the control is imperfect, but if the organisation were a completely public service run by people with no connection with advertising interests, there is no reason to suppose that it would be influenced by advertisers. This would have been an interesting experiment and I am sorry that we will not be carrying it out.

Mr. Ryan: Would my hon. Friend agree that the B.B.C. derives part of its revenue from advertising through its publications and that there is a certain alchemy here?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful for that small support, but I think that that matter is a very minor one. If my argument depended on that, it would not stand up very well. There are more powerful arguments in my favour.
As for the argument that those who wanted to kill the pirates this way chose to support breaking the B.B.C.'s monopoly in the belief that it would somehow be more popular, this is a contemptible proposition which does not do credit to those who make it. This Bill will be unpopular with some people, but the unpopularity has been over-estimated. I believe that people basically understand that the law is being broken and evaded and that the Government have determined that it shall be upheld. We must give the lead. We can argue about what should replace the pirates, but there is no difference of opinion on this side at all about the question that they should go.
Ever since I first spoke on this subject in the House, I have taken the view that the pirates must go. We cannot countenance lawlessness in these islands or off their shores without conceding a victory to gangsterism. If such a victory were gained in one area, the standing of our country as a place where the law means something would be damaged, and criminals would rejoice.
Therefore, I congratulate the Government on the Bill. I believe that it will do the job and it is the duty of all of us to see that it is enforced speedily and effectively. What, then, will happen? The White Paper talks of a fourth television service in a negative sense, of


colour television much more positively, of a new music programme to be broadcast on 247 metres, and of local sound radio. What form will this take?
The B.B.C. seem to have no doubt that they will not only conduct the experiment but will inherit it. If they do it will be local broadcasting in name only. However, when my right hon. Friend appoints the local broadcasting councils, I hope he will choose people who will not be content to be mere stooges of the Corporation but will assert to the full the rights accorded them in the White Paper. The local broadcasting councils are not to be only advisory bodies but full participators in programming and finance.
Local professional musicians are also referred to and I hope that local professional actors and journalists will also be employed. There is a place for amateurs—a separate and entirely different rôle—but a firm foundation of professionalism in local radio is absolutely essential if it is to establish itself as a popular service.
As has been said, the White Paper is vague about sources of revenue. Universities, chambers of trade and commerce are mentioned, as well as church councils and arts associations, but the latter are hardly sources of revenue. Presumably Government and local government departments will contribute. How will they do so? Will they pay for the time which they occupy? Will there be short information announcements, or is there here the beginnings of an interesting distinction between information for the public good and advertisement for private profit?
If there is, it will be fascinating to see how it develops. Is it possible that the local stations are to accept information for the public use and receive payment for it, while they are to refuse some advertising for profit? I certainly hope so. It is time that the Government discriminated against the worst manifestations of the profit motive. It will be interesting to see what results.
I congratulate the Government on the Bill and the White Paper. There is enough hope in it to make it desirable that I should not proceed with the printing of the Broadcasting Enabling Bill which the

House gave me leave to introduce earlier this Session, and I shall ask leave to withdraw it. I am sorry that we did not see fit to break the B.B.C.'s radio monopoly by frontal assault, but I hope that we shall do it by guerrilla activity all over the country.
These new stations must not be allowed to become mere relays of the B.B.C. They must initiate new and alternative programmes and should be required to transmit a proper proportion of material especially made for broadcasting, and their fees ought certainly to be no smaller than those paid by the B.B.C. Above all, control should remain firmly in the hands of representative local people.
In his appointments, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be firm in keeping out all advertising, gramophone and foreign interests. On the other hand, I hope that local authorities, local newspapers and other local interests will be fully represented——

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Does the hon. Gentleman think that this will be a charge on the rates?

Mr. Jenkins: I see no reason why a rate content should not be included, but, as this development proceeds, if we establish the local authorities in it and lay down that it will be possible in the latter stage for these organisations to accept useful and informative local advertising, I see no reason why they should not make a contribution to the rates, far from being a charge on them.
The chairman of each local council should be able to stand up to the B.B.C. and anybody else and be ready to fight for the proposition that local radio has a civic rôle—that of enriching the local community life.

6.58 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will forgive me if I do not comment on his various arguments, with many of which I entirely agree. I would prefer to come at once to the Postmaster-General's extraordinary speech. The wildest assertions were hurled across the Chamber, including the idea that if anyone ventured to criticise the Government's policy in this matter, he would be lending succour and support to Mr. Ian Smith in Rhodesia.
It is remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman, who has spent so much of his political career in the Opposition, should so rapidly have forgotten what opposition is about. I assure him that my party have some grave misgivings about the Government's record in this sphere. We intend to express them in the only possible way open to us—in the Lobby. It is true that my party are not always given a choice of exactly what we vote on, and sometimes we have to choose an Amendment which we do not entirely support or to be considered in support of Government policies which again we do not support. We nevertheless think that much has been done which is wrong. We also think that as an opposition party we have not only a right but also a duty to point to it.
As there has been so much of the holier-than-thou type of statement going about the Chamber, let me hasten to join in and call the Postmaster-General's attention to the fact that it is now nearly three years since my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) sought leave under the Ten-Minute Rule to introduce a Bill asking the then Conservative Government to do most of the things which are envisaged in the Bill. My hon. Friend asked, too, as the Postmaster-General will recall, that there should be immediate provision for alternative services. This was nearly three years ago.
If the Conservative Government had acted, or if the Labour Government, who have held office for more than two years since then, had acted, we should have been in a very different position today, because we should have been able to offer to the public viable and acceptable alternatives immediately which would have done a great deal to encourage public acceptance of the closure of the pirate radio stations. It is my personal view that the first pirate radio station which opened up should have been immediately closed. It could have been immediately closed. Had it been immediately closed, we might have been in a different position from that which we are now in.

Mr. O'Malley: If the first pirate station should have been immediately closed, why is the hon. Gentleman saying that tonight his party will go into the Lobby against the Bill?

Dr. Winstanley: Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has allowed the hon. Gentleman to interrupt him. I want to proceed with my own argument rather than with the hon. Gentleman's. If he will listen to my speech, he will realise why I believe that the only course open to my hon. Friends and I is to vote against the Government on this issue. It is nevertheless important, in view of the situation in which my hon. Friends and I are placed with regard to the possible alternatives, that I make our point of view absolutely clear. I hope to do that as briefly as possible. I shall be able to do it even more briefly if the hon. Gentleman ceases to interrupt.
We recognise the need for action. We fully agree that international agreements cannot be abrogated in this wholly unsatisfactory way and that the pirate stations must be closed. We accept this. We think that it should have happened earlier. We agree that air space in terms of frequencies, wave bands, and so on, must be rationed. There cannot be utter chaos on the air. It has to be controlled. It has to be organised. It has to be organised on an international basis. We cannot continue with an arrangement which results in interference in one country or in another. We must have solid, concrete international arrangements, properly operated.
I agree entirely with those who have adduced the argument concerning interference with shipping. I am personally aware of the importance of this, having some years ago spent some months as a wireless operator on a trawler. I know how much ships must depend on their radio and I know that they are now being interfered with. Another important object of interference which has not been referred to is in the field of radio astronomy. This is a field in which this country leads the world. There are dangers that interference is arising from pirate stations.
I accept, too, the arguments advanced in many places that steps must be taken to protect legitimate interests of copyright, rights of certain occupations, and so on. However, I do not regard it as part of my duty as a Member of the House to seek to maintain the sale of gramophone records at some fixed predetermined level, but I think that this is something that has to be looked at.


There is a further need for control, which again has not been underlined, arising from the political use of these stations. Indeed, there has already been some political use. I think that the use by individual companies which put out messages saying, "Please write to your Member of Parliament about this issue", is a political use. It is an understandable political use, but it is a use by the station to apply political pressure to protect its own interests.
We do not need to look very far before we can see other political uses which could be extremely undesirable. There are many political movements which might take charge of one of these stations and which could influence public opinion in the most undesirable way. It is possible even that my hon. Friends in the Liberal Party could get hold of a station; indeed there is no end to the sort of political uses to which the stations could be put. This is quite an important reason for the Government stepping in and saying that there must be proper control under some properly constituted body.
Having said all that, I must say that I believe that the Government clearly have a duty at the time that they are doing this to satisfy a perfectly legitimate and reasonable demand for a fair amount of pop music, a demand which has been amply evidenced over the years. As I said earlier, had steps been taken at the right time we might well have been in a position to do this simultaneously. We ought to have been in a position to do it simultaneously.
In considering how to meet this demand, we ought to think for a moment before we go too far in the protection of various individual interests, whether it be owners of copyright or whether it be artists or other performers.
I should like to consider for a few moments the general question of the development of artistic media or media concerning entertainment. Its history is significant. Every time there has been a new development there have always been claims that it would fatally affect some other existing media. For example, when films first came in it was claimed that they would destroy the theatre. They did not destroy the theatre. They forced the theatre to re-examine itself and its rôle and possibly to present itself in a new way. The theatre has not yet com-

pleted this function, I suggest. Nevertheless, the film industry has emerged as a new medium which has enriched our lives in many ways and which has found its place in the entertainment and artistic world generally.
The same argument arose over the recording of music. It was claimed that this would kill live music stone dead. It did not kill live music stone dead. Moreover, it acted very much as a stimulant to orchestral music. It has been proved over the years that the sale of recorded classical music has done a great deal to assist the interests of live classical music.
When television first came in, it was said that it would destroy radio. It did not destroy radio. Once again, it forced radio to re-examine its purpose and its methods of working so that it tended to fulfil a new rôle. I believe that radio now fulfils a very vital and very important rôle alongside television.
It would be folly to suggest that pop music ranks with these various media and that it should be given corresponding thought or a corresponding place. Nevertheless, I believe that the emergence of a demand for continuous popular music should be recognised and that we would be wise to understand that it will, if we allow it to develop in a controlled and sensible way, soon find its proper place within these various other media and will not remain the terrible threat, either to artists or to gramophone records or to the other specialised interests which are now so concerned, that it is believed to be.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: To save the representation of the views of the musicians from falling on one pair of shoulders only, may I say that my own view is that the hon. Gentleman is right up to this point. What I think he has failed to take into consideration is that, when automation proceeds to the point of the total replacement of the human personality, when the human personality is not even there, this is a situation in which the organisations who represent that person, whether he be musician or actor, must take very grave note of what is happening.

Dr. Winstanley: I take that point and I am sympathetic to it. All I am saying is that we must look ahead, not back, and we must be prepared to make certain concessions. I think that the musicians should be prepared to make concessions,


too, and, if they make concessions, they may well find in the end that they are to their benefit.
When considering how this demand is to be met, we ought to consider the question of choice and whether we really can offer a choice. One of my main criticisms of the Government's proposals in the White Paper is that they offer virtually no choice. I do not suggest that one can have a multiplicity, an endless number of radio stations broadcasting popular music continuously, and I do not say even that it is possible to have one station broadcasting popular music continuously. What I do say is that it is possible to have more than one station broadcasting popular music at least for reasonable periods, which would give listeners some sort of choice.
Competition is beneficial. A lot has been said about the introduction of independent television. We are not here thinking of the advertising side or matters of that kind. I myself regret that it has been found necessary to finance independent television out of advertising. I confess that I cannot think immediately of an acceptable alternative, but I should like to think that there was some other way of doing it. Having said that, however, I am certain that the effect of independent television on the B.B.C. has been wholly good. The Corporation's news coverage has improved beyond all recognition and its sports coverage has improved considerably. There has been mutual benefit. Each has benefited from the existence of the other.
In thinking of radio in new terms, let us think in new terms of competition. We are not yet doing that. The Postmaster-General's proposals consist very much of his scheme for local radio, and this seems to be a wholly separate subject. I cannot envisage it being possible for local radio stations of the kind envisaged to satisfy the demand about which we are talking. First, I think it unlikely that there will be a wide enough spread of local stations. Second, it will be totally beyond the financial range of small local radio stations to provide this kind of service. I accept some of the arguments advanced about local radio, and I am delighted that the Postmaster-General is to introduce his experiment. I wish these

developments all possible good fortune, but it is folly to pretend that they will be the replacement for the pirate radio stations. They will not. They will be very welcome, but they will be something very different. Therefore, in terms of the alternative, we have to think of the single channel which, the Postmaster-General told us, will broadcast a great deal more popular music than hitherto. I cannot regard this as offering the sort of choice we want.
I accept that we cannot go on offering choice after choice. There comes a point at which there are too many channels, whether in television or radio, so that the element of competition begins to undermine itself. Indeed, I doubt that this country can produce the necessary talent and resources to mount more than a certain number of stations. In television, for example, I should hate to approach the situation in New York where, on any one of 19 different stations now, at any time of the day, one can have the choice of 19 different old films. This is what happens when there is a multiplicity of choice.
There is, nevertheless, a field for choice in sound radio. I should like to see the introduction of something genuinely independent, perhaps mounted by a consortium of interested parties operating in some way, perhaps financed in part by advertising. I am not terrified by the bogy of advertising, though I regret that it seems to be the only way. I follow the hon. Member opposite who suggested that advertising could be used in such a way as not to have any influence over programme content. There is no evidence that advertising has had any influence whatever on the programme content of independent television. For example, when I was doing some programmes on health education and I followed an advertisement about a hair restorer which, so it was promised, could grow hair on a billiard ball, I was allowed to come on immediately afterwards and say not that it was no good at all but that I had never actually seen a hairy billiard ball. There has been no criticism of the people who appear on independent television regularly and criticise the advertisements. I am sure that the two, programme content and finance, can be kept separate.


We need some sort of independent corporation on the lines of the Independent Television Authority to preserve balance, in terms of political presentation and so forth and to see that advertisers do not exert any direct influence. I believe that the Postmaster-General could have seized this opportunity to provide something different and to introduce a competitive element in sound radio.

Mr. Ridsdale: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. What he is describing has been done in practice in Japan over the past 10 years.

Dr. Winstanley: I have no experience of what goes on in Japan, and I am not altogether sure that what happens there would necessarily suit us, but I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's corroboration that it is possible to have a competitive solution of that kind.
Whoever has been responsible—I am proud that my party is not, though I think it regrettable in many ways that it did not have responsibility—the wrong things have been done over a long period. No action was taken to start with. No action was taken at an early enough stage to provide satisfactory alternatives which would have made it very easy to deal with the whole problem. As a consequence, the Postmaster-General now has to ask the House to do something which will be extremely unpopular, because a lot of other things were not done first.
The responsibility is not the right hon. Gentleman's. His predecessor tended to adopt an ostrich-like posture towards pop music. He felt that it was somehow faintly distasteful and he would rather not notice that it was going on. Had he converted his distaste into action and done something about it earlier, we should have been in a very much better position today.
The present Government are very much at fault for the way in which they have handled the matter. Because they are at fault, my hon. Friends and I will have to show our dissatisfaction in the Lobby. We agree that suppression has to take place, but we consider that the whole business has been handled very badly. For this reason, we have no alternative but to vote against the Government tonight.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: I share with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) the sentiment that the Government have taken too long to deal with this matter. The Bill is long overdue. It is, in fact, the first stage in three connected battles in the contest between public service broadcasting and commercial radio. The first is to put the pirates out of business. The second is to sustain public service broadcasting within our shores against commercial radio. The third is to make sure that public service broadcasting has a viable form of finance.
The Government have shilly-shallied in dealing with the pirates, and to this extent they have made dealing with them more difficult. This episode has had its note of hilarity for those of us who have followed the subject closely over the last 18 months. We saw the Ministry of Defence embarrassed to find that it was the legal owner of forts in the Thames Estuary. The Ministry has actually said that it dare not atempt to remove the pirate radio operators from disused Army forts, and in one remarkable statement we were told that the Ministry of Defence was reluctant to be mixed up in anything which would involve the use of force. If the Ministry of Defence is reluctant to be involved in the use of force, I do not know why we spend £2,000 million a year on it.
Various hon. Members, including the Postmaster-General himself, have dealt with the main formal points and reasons why the Bill is necessary. Basically, the pirates are operating a system of theft on the high seas and also, within our territorial waters, theft of other people's work. They are conducting an illegal operation.
It is significant that the only responsible speech from the other side of the House, in my opinion—I except that of the hon. Member for Cheadle from that censure—came from the one hon. Member opposite who has had actual responsibility for dealing with the matter, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who was Assistant Postmaster-General when it first came up. It is obvious that power had its influence on him, but I think that it will be a long time before it has an influence on the shadow spokesman on the subject, the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan).
In a letter to The Times in January, 1966, Sir Alan Herbert summed up the position very well, and in fact nearly all the arguments are in his letter. I wish to quote one succinct paragraph, which says:
No doubt the illicit offerings are 'popular'; but anyone who kept a tavern open without a licence day and night and dispensed stolen beer free would be 'popular'. He would not be allowed to continue for long.
My complaint is that in this instance he has been allowed to continue a bit too long.
What is the general problem we face on the subject, other than the formal objections of copyright law, international wavelengths and so on? I think that it is an amalgamation of various things: first, that radio is a very cheap medium of communication and therefore one that people can enter without too much capital; secondly, that we have the best broadcasting system in the world, television and radio, and one of the reasons why our radio broadcasting system is the best is that it has been closely regulated by a monopoly.
We take too much for granted the standard of British broadcasting, and when the example of other English-speaking countries is cited and it is said that we are the only one without commercial radio, the moral I draw, going to the United States, Australia, or Canada, which I have also visited, is that they have commercial radio and in many cases wish that they did not.
Broadcasting is basically about programmes, not about advertising; and it is not about the doctrines of monopoly either, may I say to some of my hon. Friends as well as to hon. Members opposite. It matters not a fig whether or not it is a monopoly, whether or not profits are made. What matters are the programmes.
But experience seems to show that allowing profit to be involved in broadcasting, breaking monopolies, tends to produce a lower level of programme overall. There is a Gresham's Law in broadcasting and if one allows the bad to come in, as I believe that the pirate radios are bad in standards of taste and values, it gradually drives out the good. Anybody who has studied the American

system well known that the problem is that there is an inexorable non-stop appeal towards the lowest common denominator, partly because of the economics—the cheapest thing to do is to put on gramophone records—and partly to get for the advertiser the largest number of listeners over a period of 24 hours.
When people ask that we should have an experiment on what to do about radio, the answer is that we have had an experiment among countries all round the world, and we can learn lessons from them. Choices must be made on radio. Many hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, believe that the need to make a choice can be escaped by resting on market forces, allowing the market basically to determine what is broadcast; what I have previously called a kind of "cultural Powellism".
That is a tenable position, though it produces broadcasting which I do not regard as acceptable. Alternatively, one can consciously decide that one will try to decide what system will produce the best broadcasting in total—balanced broadcasting, balanced in two senses: first, that the programme producer puts out a variety of programmes, and secondly, that of the six or eight strongest signals one receives on one's radio, five, six or seven are not broadly similar pop music stations.
It is very unfashionable in public life and in the House today to make value judgments, partly, I think, because politicians are frightened of making them. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) almost admitted that he was frightened of appearing to be somewhat "square". Why an hon. Member for Bournemouth should be so worried about that, I do not know, but that was the impression I got.
I find it depressing today that people who should and often do know better are fleeing before the wind of pop, and often—not always—because they sniff a smell of easy money. It is like well-trained architects capable of appreciating good architecture knowingly building jerrybuilt houses for people who know no better. What depresses me about the kind of cultural problem we have is that one could end up with a sort of split society with impoverished programmes


—in other words, pop programmes, poor news services—just headlines—for the ill-educated masses while people like us, Members of Parliament, the intelligentsia, can opt out by listening to the B.B.C. and better broadcasting. That is an offensive way of organising our society.
What we have operating outside the House is a squalid pressure group, squalid because it is dressed up under the principle of free choice. I make no allegations about what there is operating inside the House, because, so far as I know, there is no evidence on that. Perhaps we should wait for work of the research workers, as there was after the television operation. The squalid pressure group is appealing to a low level of taste and at the same time hoping to make a commercial killing.
What is the free choice being advanced by some people outside and inside the House? The other night I listened to the pirates. I decided that I would see what choice was open to me, and I started with Britain Radio, which claims to be the somewhat better station. I exempt Radio 390, which is on its own. On Britain Radio—355 metres—I heard a song called "Where My Little Girl is Smiling". I turned to Radio London, where I heard, "Baby, I Kinda Need Your Love All the Time". When I switched to Caroline South it was "Let me Cry On Your Shoulder". Back to Britain Radio, where I heard, "It Takes Two, Baby". On to Radio London again to hear, "Hey There Georgie Girl", and then to Caroline South again, where I heard, "Please Release Me and Let Me Love Again", followed by, "I Know I'm Losing You". Back to London to hear, "I've Been a Bad, Bad
Boy". By this time I began to think that perhaps I had been.
When I described, in a letter to The Times, the choice the pirates offer as a bogus choice of "broadly similar tunes of audible wallpaper", the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who speaks for his party on this subject, wrote back a letter saying that I assumed "an attitude both ignorant and superior". I thought that a little hard.
The problem of choice is not only a shortage of talent. With too many stations, with all the talent in the world,

market forces will produce lower and lower standards of broadcasting in the Gresham's Law sense. That is one reason why American broadcasting is so abominable.
It surprises me that with this banal choice somebody like Mrs. Mary Whitehouse does not belabour the producers of those broadcasts, why they do not suffer her censure, and why only the occasional weaknesses of a public service broadcast excite her attention.
I do not think that it is desirable to have a replica—legal or illegal, offshore or onshore—of the kind of broadcasting choice which we have seen in the United States over so many years. The pirate stations are Trojan horses—one might call them Trojan seahorses—for commercial radio in this country. To some extent they are operating with the explicit, and in many ways implicit, support of the Conservative Party. It is regrettable that the shadow spokesman should have seen fit to visit a pirate station operating illegally. I also have my doubts about defending them in the courts, though I know that lawyers may dispute my judgment on that.
But the success—if it be success—of the pirates should not be allowed to dictate the future of radio broadcasting in this country and I am glad to say that the Government are making sure that it will not. But, of course, we have had great battles to fight, for instance to avoid confusion between pop radio and the market for it, and the possibilities of local radio. We have heard that some hon. Members of weaker heart have had to resist the pressures which have come from the petitions organised by the pirate stations. For myself, I would take the same view as a former Tory Prime Minister—that I would take as much notice of my valet, if I had one, as of petitions organised by the pirate stations.

Mr. John Page: Would the hon. Gentleman wish to censor gramophone records sold in shops? Some people want to listen to pop tunes, about which he is being rather grand, and to other kinds of music which the hon. Member may feel inappropriate.

Mr. Rowland: I am talking about the valuable commodities which are broadcasting wavelengths and channels and what should be done to them. I do not


believe that they should be filled up by a homogeneous programming of rather low cultural quality, but I am not suggesting that people should not go to gramophone shops and buy records if they want to. That is a different matter.

Mr. Page: Censorship.

Mr. Rowland: Of course, censorship in the sense that every broadcast involves a decision and choice. That is the essence of it. That is why I believe that the B.B.C. on the whole has done a good job, for it exercises decisions on the whole correctly and makes the right kind of choices. Hon. Members opposite may not wish to have to face up to making that kind of decision.
May I now turn to the details of the Bill?
A minor detail about the Bill is whether Clause I would cover communications satellites. It has been put to me and I promised that I would raise it in the debate. I want also to ask about the efficacy of the Bill in general in terms of doing the job that it is intended to do —to put the pirates out of action. Under Clauses 4(3) and 5(3), what if procuring does take place outside the United Kingdom? It is not clear whether it will be illegal actually to go outside the United Kingdom and procure someone to commit an illegal act.
In Clause 5(3,e) there is reference to advertising. Does it rule out international advertising? Suppose there is an international company which has a British subsidiary and an office in New York outside the scope of the European Convention. What is the situation if the New York office or the New York parent decides to place advertising on a pirate station which is clearly of benefit to the United Kingdom subsidiary, without the United Kingdom subsidiary itself placing the advertising or being charged for the account? I would like an assurance that this could not be a loophole in the Bill.

Mr. Iremonger: It would be a miserable loophole. If that is all they are going to rely on, then they had better pack up before they get started.

Mr. Rowland: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance. Some pirates who have come to this building have suggested that they will be able

to get enough international advertising to survive. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is whistling in the dark."] I believe that they are whistling in the dark, but I want to ensure that it is very dark, indeed.
I should also like an answer about the position of the Isle of Man. Extension of the Bill to the Isle of Man is to be by Order in Council. Radio Caroline North lies about 3½ miles off the Isle of Man. Would it be covered only after the Order in Council was made? If that is so, when will the Order in Council be brought in? Again, when will the Bill be brought into operation? This in turn leads to another question. When will the B.B.C.'s popular music service come on the air? Everyone agrees that it is desirable, perhaps even essential, that it should be brought on the air before the pirates are finally off the air.
When we pass the Bill, do we then automatically ratify the European Convention? We should then become the third State to do so, in which case the Convention will become totally operative. Are we then in a position to stop anyone in Holland, for instance, from supplying pirates?
I welcome the Bill and the White Paper that goes with it because it is decided that pop should be national and not local and that we should have a local radio experiment before committing ourselves to a long term system of broadcasting on a local basis. I have doubts about the financing of local radio. I would still prefer an increase in the licence fee. Radio is cheap. It need not be an exorbitant increase.
I do not believe that the B.B.C. wishes this experiment to fail, as some people have suggested. The only people with a vested interest in failure will be the advertising industry, because it will be able to say that advertising is the only way to finance it if we cannot increase the licence fee and other systems of financing fail. It is not a principle—it does not justify the title—to say that one cannot have a licence fee for local radio because some areas may not get local radio. On that basis, the present experiment would stand condemned because the two-thirds of listeners who do not have v.h.f. could be said to be subsidising the one-third of listeners who have. In the same


way, those who only receive B.B.C.1 subsidise those who get B.B.C.2. I do not mind that either.
The most cheering event today was when my right hon. Friend indicated that there is a divide between the parties on whether programmes or profits should be the main motivating force of broadcasting. As he is not here now, I will not remind him of by how narrow a margin the Government remained on the path of virtue in this matter, but by this Bill he has taken a major step in maintaining the public service system; and I hope that, in the years ahead, he will go on to strengthen it.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) speaks with knowledge of the subject and I enjoyed part of his speech, although I cannot say that I entirely agreed with it. I enjoyed his description of going up and down the dial on his radio and I wonder how long he went up and down it in order to hear and be able to name the tunes he did. Nevertheless, it made a good story. But I question the phrase he used, "the smell of easy money". Even when talking of possible commercial radio, I do not think that one is thinking of easy money in that sense.
To my mind his suggestion went back to the days of the first big independent television companies which, after having enormous initial losses, made a great deal of money. Not all television companies did so. There was my own solitary attempt to get an interest in a commercial television company. That company was the 15th station and the last to obtain a contract from the I.T..A. Fortunately my company was unsuccessful in getting a contract and the successful applicant went bankrupt within two years. So there was not all that amount of money to be made in every case.
I shall be brief as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, and I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) is hoping to disagree with his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).
I find this a depressing Bill. That is not surprising, because it comes from a depressing Government. The Postmaster-

General seems to have adopted an extraordinarily Scrooge-like attitude to the subject. I hoped that when he became Postmaster-General he would get things moving, because nothing much happened during the term of office of the previous Postmaster-General.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) earlier this afternoon made a perfectly fair point about radio pirates interfering with messages from ships in distress, and I take that point. But surely if that is the case, and it may well be, why did not the Government bring in the Bill much sooner? Why has there been this long delay between last July, when the Bill was first published, and the Second Reading which is now being debated?
A lot has been said about the effect on the B.B.C. of the pirate radio stations over the past two or three years. There is no doubt that they have had a tremendous effect on the B.B.C. just as, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said earlier, the independent television companies have had an effect on B.B.C. television. This is borne out in a speech last month by Mr. Gillard, B.B.C. Director of Sound Broadcasting, who said:
People want more music in their everyday life and quite reasonably they look to radio to supply a good deal of it. Step by step the B.B.C. sound programmes have been doing their best to meet this trend.
Steps have been taken very slowly, but I believe they would have been even slower had it not been for the pirate radio stations providing intense competition during these past years.
To do away with the one without replacing it with another immediately is very bad policy. We criticise the Bill because the Government are doing one thing without doing any constructive work on the other side. Since the Postmaster-General insists that there is no connection between this Bill and the White Paper, one can only assume that they are quite separate efforts.
Let us look for a moment at the White Paper. What do we find? We find that we are to have this Radio 247. The fact that it will be called by that name surely suggests that it will not be unconnected with the kind of programmes


which the pirate stations have been providing. The White Paper says:
In the Government's view the provision of a popular music programme on the medium wavelength 247 metres would on an overall appraisal provide an extension of choice to the listener.
That is not a very exciting phrase. All it means is that the B.B.C. will provide music for most of the day but not between the hours of 7.30 and 10.30. I cannot quite follow the significance of that threehour gap. I am sure that many people travelling in their cars would like to have music during those hours. What shall we have in its place?
I particularly question the Postmaster-General on the matter of local radio stations. Why this delay? He said this afternoon that he is hoping to announce in the next week to two where the first three stations will be. There seems no reason why he could not have given us this information during this debate. It would have been helpful to know where they all are. Why not tell us where the nine stations will be? Is it possible that the reason he cannot do so is because he has fallen down so completely on this fantastic way of financing them?
Other hon. Members have referred to the particular paragraph in the White Paper and I made no apology for returning to it. Who is to pay for them? There has been the suggestion that chambers of commerce will pay, but that it not what they are there for. I was on the council of one for some years and I cannot see where the money will come from. It is not their job to pay.
As for the suggestion that it might come on next year's rates, that is absolutely abhorrent. I agree with the remarks of the eminently wise Birmingham council, who are wise in many other ways not relevant to this debate, who called this scheme "a dead duck".
Let me also mention the question of the local Press, which is a very important aspect. Last week we had a general debate on the Press. It is important to remember that, while advertising could be taken away from local papers, if local commercial stations were allowed, the advertising revenue could be of great benefit to local papers provided they could have an interest in the stations themselves.
We know only too well that local newspapers are feeling the squeeze very much at the moment—I do not mean purely the economic squeeze imposed by the Government, but a squeeze in general. Local newspapers might well be given in this way a new extension of their profitability. They are about to be involved, for instance, in expenditure on new types of presses and so on, which will be inevitable in the next few years. I should like to see local newspapers benefiting from being able to have an interest in the stations. On the other hand, I want to see these stations taking advertising because that is the only way they will make, not vast sums which hon. Gentlemen hinted at, but normal profits to enable them to continue in business.
Another point about local papers which must be considered carefully is that they will meet competition from local stations in the editorial sense. Local stations will be able to broadcast local news, particularly local sports news which at the moment local people read in their evening and weekly newspapers. That is why they buy them. A lot of this news will be covered in the local broadcasting stations, whichever form they take, whether it be the kind the Postmaster-General wants or the kind I should like to see. It would be of essential benefit to the local Press if they could participate in this way.
Basically where the Bill falls down is that it is taking away, and in so doing leaving a great gap, something which the public has learned to like. Whether it is right that they should do this is another matter, but to take this away without replacing it with anything else is a very retrograde step.
I am sorry that the Postmaster-General was so personal in his remarks. This is an important subject, and to bring Rhodesia into it was complete nonsense.
I was not surprised to find that on the same page of the B.B.C. pamphlet from which I quoted Mr. Gillard's article there is a reference to the "Alice in Wonderland" programme. The Postmaster-General, in bringing in the Bill and separating it from the White Paper, is behaving just like the March Hare who said to Alice, "Have some wine?" Alice replied, "I do not see any wine", to which the March Hare replied, "Well there isn't any wine."
The Postmaster-General has taken something away and there is nothing in its place. That is why I am absolutely confident that our Amendment is right, and I hope that the Government will take heed of it and accept it in the spirit that it is moved.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I have listened to most of the debate. The case for this narrow Bill was well put by the Minister and put equally well and courageously by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby).
I am completely in agreement with the Bill but I consider that it is an orphan. I want to say one or two things that may not commend themselves to this side of the House, but sooner or later we must look at the problem.
I heard the contribution of the Liberal Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). I happen to be his constituent these days. I can say that, apart from his last few words, I agreed with practically every word he said. If I might venture to say to him in passing, an area where the Liberals might take over one of the pop radio stations would be perhaps in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, where they already have an interest.
I regard the Bill, very long delayed, as a response by the stick-in-the-mud established B.B.C. institution to the innovator. I see it equally as the reaction of the slow process of government to the disruptive entrepreneur—and the radio pirates are entrepreneurs and we must be factual in examining what they do. It is the reaction of law and order to an enterprising, albeit illegal form of off-shore broadcasting and it has taken the B.B.C. and the Government a very long time to deal with this daring competitor. But it had to come and we have a short sledgehammer Bill to do it.
In a way, I regret that the Bill is likely to have an effect months before the alternative services are available to that vast new younger generation which some of us have to try to understand properly. I would like the operation of the Bill to begin no sooner than when the B.B.C. is able to put the new services into being, although I have no wish to connive at irregularities or illegality in any way.
But I want to ask my hon. Friends to consider how this position has come about. My hon. Friend the Member for

Meriden (Mr. Rowland) seemed to take the attitude, "The B.B.C. knows best". I have long since left that opinion. I generally prefer its programmes, because that is my way of life and I suppose that it is the way of life of a majority of people in this country. But that is no reason why the B.B.C., in its old-fashioned, enclosed monastic attitude, should tell the rest of the country, half of which prefers some other form of entertainment and which insists on its kind of entertainment, that the B.B.C.'s opinion is preferable. We have now reached the position when half a dozen entertainers, perhaps with doubtful backgrounds, have captured 16 per cent. of the listening public within three years, and if I were one of them I would not regard that as failure, but as a major step forward.
I beg my colleagues to decide whether the old-fashioned form of financing of the B.B.C. will meet the requirements of the future in the light of modern practice. Last week in the debate on the Press we took cognisance of the fact that there is a new power in the land. That power is advertising and nearly all our problems have arisen since advertising reached up the mountains of power. That is illustrated by the fact that £590 million a year is now devoted to advertising as a whole. The amount spent in television advertising each year has increased from £11 million in 1956 to £72 million in 1960 to £106 million now.
There is no wonder that the B.B.C. and the Press are facing a challenge, because these barons in advertising are now in a position seriously to damage both the B.B.C. and the newspapers and to damage some newspapers almost beyond repair. The B.B.C.'s major competitor has a buoyant rising revenue and the B.B.C. has a static revenue, and yet the House and the public in general are asking the B.B.C., as the White Paper does, to develop its services.
I agree that its services should be developed, but let us be frank in facing the implications. How can we continue to ask for increased services from the B.B.C. when at one and the same time we deny ourselves a proper examination of the B.B.C.'s financial fabric? The preceding Government evaded the issue right up to 1964, although it had become ripe for decision by then. Of course hon. Members


opposite have a lobby in the background and it was exhibited today when even their Front Bench spokesman made the position quite clear—they want broadcasting to be broken up for profit.
But what is wrong with advertising? I have never listened to Radio Caroline, because I am not interested, but what is wrong with advertising on television and what would be wrong with advertising on sound radio is the present standard of advertising. Do we take exception to a reasonable advertisement which appears in The Times, The Guardian, Tribune, Church News, or in my telephone book where at least my undertaker's name appears? Of course we do not take exception to advertising which is civilised.
We take exception to the uncivilised sort of advertising which may enter our homes. All that stands in the way of the advance of broadcasting as a whole is the need to interpose a body between the I.T.V. and the B.B.C. on the one hand and the advertisers on the other, a body which in a detached way can decide on standards and on taste and, as long as advertising can enter our dining rooms, its timing in programmes. We need such a body between the vehicle and the consumer, a body which can provide civilised standards.
We will then be able to say that the B.B.C.'s Charter is not sacrosanct, although it was right for the period when it was introduced. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle and I regret that commercial television was ever introduced, but we have to live with it. My difficulty is that the B.B.C. is constantly shutting its eyes to developments and it takes an intellectual attitude to the rest of the country which is not justified. If the B.B.C.'s board room were changed—and such a change is overdue, for much of its thinking is outdated—the B.B.C. could begin to become a part of the world in which we live and in which we have advertising whether we like it or not and it could begin to accept the implications of life in a modern world and consider at the same time how to civilise this revenue producer when it goes into people's homes.
This would not be impossible. We have heard about examples from New York and so on and when I was in Jamaica I heard and saw such examples,

but there is no precedent for having an independent body interposed between the man who wants to buy the time and the vehicle distributing it. My right hon. Friend must appreciate that there was a great deal of difficulty about increasing the licence fee and that it was increased against public resistance. I ask hon. Members to consider how many of our constituents, no doubt for all sorts of proletarian reasons, prefer I.T.A. More than half of them take its programmes in preference.

Mr. Bryan: The hon. Gentleman's views on advertising and mine are very nearly similar. Can he tell me why, on the one hand, I am regarded for some unknown reason as being in a lobby, while he is not? Secondly, does he not agree that there is a system, although not identical with that which he described, for I.T.A.? Does he not think that the standard of advertising on I.T.A. is satisfactory?

Mr. Mapp: I would not at this moment say "Yes" to the standard of advertising on I.T.V.; I would say "No" to a great deal of it, for reasons which I would go into privately with the hon. Gentleman. But I will not now take up the time of the House. If I gather from the Front Bench that it is now prepared to consider a similar financial structure for I.T.V. and B.B.C. which will incorporate a civilised element of advertising, then I can see a way forward and I hope that the Minister can.
Otherwise the Government may have deferred an increase in the licence fee, which should be more than it is. A reappraisal of the whole position would show, perhaps, that the £85 million now turned over to commercial advertising on television would expand under the conditions that I have postulated, to about £120 million in a matter of three or four years. There would be a great influx of regional advertising, which in itself, would make it more tolerable than the detergent and other advertising that one gets on a national basis. Both channels should have their basic revenue in this way. Then I would accept that maybe £1 or £2, up to 50s., would be charged for a common licence, shared equitably between the partners, the publicly owned company and the private one, private if necessary on a share basis, but both


operating with the same financial structure.
The Government have not been adding up the sums. When the other side of the House was in power it was more guilty than us of this. For a year or two my Government were faced with intolerable problems, but the time is overdue when we should put aside some of our dogmas and look at this realistically. I postulate this problem, particularly to my own colleagues. Where one has a public utility in direct competition with private enterprise for the same commodity or service the ultimate result always has been, and always will be, that the utility will generally be in the red, not for the reasons adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, that private enterprise is more efficient, but because this House constantly imposes statutory limitations upon the public utility, precludes it from being enterprising and looks at it scathingly if it makes a wrong decision. On the other hand, private enterprise invariably attacks selectively, in the chosen or populous areas and has a buoyant set of conditions with normally good management.
That is one of the problems facing nearly all of the nationalised industries producing in competition with private enterprise, often under unfair and inequitable conditions, I agree. If we return to the basic elements of what constitutes the real case, then we shall begin to put our house in order. In particular, I beg my side of the House to reappraise the position of the B.B.C. and I.T.V., taking into account the unfortunate position that people have willingly become criminal in order to spotlight a contradiction in our law. It is of no value to our people, to the Government, or to my party to defer a decision for two or three years when, electorily, it might have very unhappy results.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Many of us have enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who has his feet very much more firmly on the ground in this matter than many of his hon. Friends. One of the points that have been brought out most forcibly in this debate is that the B.B.C.

is not very well served in the House by its apologists who tend to be of the pre-1955 vintage, and who adopt the attitude which the hon. Gentleman condemned, that the B.B.C. knows best. That is not really serving the Corporation, for which many of us in this House have a great admiration. However it has its defects.
Nor is it serving the B.B.C. to stick one's head in the sand, as I believe the hon. Members for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) and South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) have done. It is perfectly clear that the pirates have brought a new challenge and a breath of fresh air to broadcasting in Britain. The figures speak for themselves. I admit that I quote the pirates' statistics which tell that 18 million to 20 million people a week listen to them. Others may disagree, but there is nevertheless a substantial body and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) told me that he had received a petition from his constituency, signed by 700 people who listened to Radio Scotland——

Mr. J. T. Price: Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)rose——

Mr. Stratton Mills: I would rather not give way, because there are other hon. Members waiting to enter the debate. I would also draw the attention of the House to figures in a National Opinion Poll, published some time ago, showing that 34 per cent. of the public thought that the pirates ought to be banned, 51 per cent. thought that they ought to continue, and 15 per cent. were in the "don't know" category. On these figures, which cover a wider sample than any of the private polls conducted by the B.B.C., it would appear that the public feels, rightly or wrongly that the pirates are providing a useful service.
Although I do not necessarily argue that the pirates have proved that there is a desire for local sound radio, they have proved that the public wants something more than the B.B.C. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan), in a very interesting speech reinforced this point. It is not necessary, in conducting his experiment, for the Postmaster-General to say that one alternative is the B.B.C. and the other is commercial body. There are other alternatives, of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and I


regret very much that we will have a onehorse race, an experiment with one runner.
It would have been much better to have said that there would be a couple of private enterprise stations, several run by local authorities in conjunction with the B.B.C., and perhaps a self-financing public group of the type proposed by the hon. Gentleman taking advertising on a uniform basis. There are many permutations of this and the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, open to condemnation in shutting his eyes to the great opportunities presented. I believe that the pirates in their present form cannot continue for ever.
But our main criticism is of the alternative which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. I thought it distinctly unreasonable of him to adopt the kind of Chief Whip tactics with which he began the debate. He was a Chief Whip for too long, if I may say so with the greatest respect. To adopt the attitude that anyone who opposed the Bill was disloyal to the country, was bringing the House into degradation and should be sent to the Tower of London was distinctly disingenuous of him.
I have been through the Bill quite carefully. I hope that the Postmaster-General will have the services of one of the Law Officers in the Committee as a number of very complicated legal points are involved. I hope that we shall not have a situation in which points arise which neither he nor the Assistant Postmaster-General, for reasons which I understand, will be able to answer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note that.
Is the Bill entirely effective? The hon. Member for Meriden wondered what would be the position of advertising if subsidiaries abroad were at arm's length. It would be interesting to know the answer. Of the leaders of three of the main pirate stations, Ronan O'Rahilly of Radio Caroline, is a Republic of Ireland citizen, Philip Berch of Radio London has dual American and British citizenship and William Vick of Radio Britain has American citizenship. Has the Postmaster-General power in the Bill to stop a ship operating with a foreign crew and accepting foreign advertising? On my reading of the Bill, he has not. I accept

that there is probably not enough advertising for more than one pirate ship or so to operate. But it is possible for several of the pirate ships to combine and co-ordinate in different parts of the United Kingdom and to use purely advertising from abroad. The Postmaster-General will find himself a laughing stock if a coach and horses can be driven through the Bill.

Mr. Short: If any of the gentlemen whom the hon. Gentleman mentions, whatever his nationality, operates from this country to procure any of the actions which are necessary to operate one of these stations, he will be liable under the Bill.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I understand that. But these are very ingenious people. They have some of the best legal advice probably in the Western Hemisphere. They set up a very complicated structure initially and I do not think that they will be chased off by a few shouts from the Postmaster-General. They will be looking for loopholes in the Bill. Is it not possible that they will operate completely outside the United Kingdom with foreign ships and foreign advertising? The Bill will not touch them.
I come to the question of Radio 247. The B.B.C. has put out a circular saying that 80 per cent. of the country will be able to get Radio 247. Today the Postmaster-General said that 80 per cent. of the country would "eventually" be able to get Radio 247. My information is that the wavelength used covers only about 55 to 60 per cent. of the population, leaving gaps in large urban areas in the Midlands and West. Surely this is not altogether satisfactory.
It appears that the station will shut down from 7.30 to 10 o'clock in the evening merely because of competition from television. This seems to be quite extraordinary and an entirely negative attitude. We have not had an explanation of it. If the station starts with this kind of attitude it is defeated before it begins, if it says that it cannot stand the competition of television. We have not heard very much detail about how much extra the 247 programme will cost the B.B.C. I understand that there is very severe interference at the moment from Radio Albania. A number of problems about Radio 247 have not been


adequately dealt with and I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will deal with them.
My next point concerns the experiment in local sound radio. It has been said that about one in three of the population has v.h.f. radio. The Gallup Poll for the Monthly Purchasers Index shows that only 11 per cent. of the population have v.h.f. radios. I should have thought this was more in conformity with the true figure. I have a certain suspicion whether it is accurate to say that one in three of the population has v.h.f. radio.

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is confusing households with individuals. One household in three has v.h.f. radio.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I take the difference, but I still have considerable doubt about whether the figure is correct.
The main point on the local sound radio experiment is finance. This has not been cleared up properly. There were immensely vague and woolly phrases in the White Paper. The Postmaster-General's speech today did not give us much more information. He was good enough to give way to me and I asked whether rates would be used. The White Paper said that they would not, and the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be possible to make specific contributions from rates. I am a little worried about this, because we shall reach the situation in which the hat is passed round and when it is found that there is not much money in it local authorities will have to supply the bulk of the running costs. They will find that they cannot do it by a general grant from the rates generally and they will be encouraged by the Postmaster-General to fiddle it—for example if they put on a programme about drains, the sanitary department might put in a little bit of money. If they put on a programme on health matters, the health department might put in a little bit of money. If they put on a programme on education, the education department might put in a little bit of money. This is exactly the same as if the money were coming from the rates. The method of financing the situation has not been made clear.
A great opportunity has been missed by the Postmaster-General, partly on grounds of sheer obstinacy and partly on

grounds of political and anti-commercial prejudice. I listened to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden and the Postmaster-General. I could not help noticing the tremendous difference between them. My hon. Friend had studied the matter carefully. He said that he did not accept the pirates, but he had gone to see them. He studied the Isle of Man station in depth. He had got the feel of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was essentially negative. He had made up his mind before he began. We are, therefore, right to press our Amendment in the Lobby.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) began the debate from the Opposition benches today by saying that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General had adopted a high moral tone. I think he did, and I respected that. No one listening to the debate could accuse hon. Members opposite of adopting a high moral tone in this discussion. What seemed disgraceful about most of the contributions from hon. Members opposite is that speaker after speaker, with a few exceptions, has said, that they oppose the existence of the pirates and recognise that they are illegal, that they are not paying their proper dues in terms of copyright, that they are a danger to shipping and that they are using unauthorised wavelengths, but they oppose the Bill which would get rid of precisely those people who are acting illegally.
The position of the Tories, I understand from a recent article in The Times, is to agree that the pirates are acting illegally, yet the hon. Member for Howden accused the Postmaster-General of not going to see the pirates. I regard people who commit illegal acts as disreputable. It is rather disgraceful that the hon. Member should himself have been in contact with some pirate radio stations, one of which I understand was Radio Scarborough. The fact that one of the people concerned with its operation happens to be an ex-Tory Member of Parliament does not make the matter better but worse.
The hon. Member for Howden implied that the Musiciains' Union, to which I belong as an ex-dance band leader and


a musician over a number of years, was tending to act in a Luddite fashion. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) from the Liberal benches spoke about needle time and the need for that to be looked at. What none of these hon. Members said was that only two years ago the Musicians' Union agreed to an increase in needle time for the B.B.C. from 28 to 75 hours a week, which by any standards is a considerable increase.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) complained, as other hon. Members have, of paying for local radio through the rates. The implication in the arguments used this afternoon is quite clear. It is that if one has commercial radio, national or local, people are not paying for it, but it is cheaper to pay through the rates or through central government taxation than through advertising. A letter sent from the head office of the Musicians' Union to all branches a few weeks ago stated:
The income of the I.T.V. companies from advertisers totals more than one hundred million pounds a year. The advertisers do not pay out of their own pockets! The purchaser of the advertised commodities pays indirectly by tolerating a little extra on the price or by accepting 'a little less in the packet'. The average family contributes in this way about £8 a year to commercial T.V., which provides one channel. We pay a licence fee of £5 a year for the B.B.C., which gives us two T.V. channels and three sound broadcasting channels. As 'Punch' put it very well recently: 'We are incredibly stupid in money matters. We would rather give Lord Thompson a licence to print his own money—at our expense of course—than cough up a fee payable directly to the B.B.C. We regard services as 'free' if we pay for them twice over by indirect means.

Mr. Bryan: That is a really pathetic argument. If we ask people whether they would like to pay by means of a £5 or £6 licence fee or by advertisements I wonder how they would reply. It is not only we who say that this should not be paid through the rates. The Government White Paper has laid down that it should not be paid through the rates.

Mr. O'Malley: I know what the Government White Paper says and what has been said by the Postmaster-General this afternoon about how local authorities can help officially. If we in this House are to any degree the custodians of the national interest and of the interests of

the people we try to represent, it is our job to see that they get the service as cheaply as possible and do not have to enter the most expensive market.

Mr. Mawby: I think the hon. Member has got his arithmetic wrong or the person who wrote the letter has got it wrong, because on a quick calculation I find that it works out at £2 a year payment by each person for I.T.V., which is a lot different from £8.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not true that that apart from paying £8 a head if we exclude those who do not have television it is likely that twice as much would be paid for I.T.V. as for B.B.C.?

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend may well be right. We have heard many contradictory suggestions this afternoon. I believe the figure I quoted on this narrow issue is correct, and that at this stage I had better not go further than that.
The hon. Member for Howden mentioned that I am a member of the Musicians' Union. I know that I am echoing the official policy of that union and that I am reflecting the views of the vast majority of its members throughout the country when I say that we are opposed to the pirate stations. We support this Bill and we are opposed to the pirate stations because they are unauthorised and unlawful. We accept all the objections to them which have been put in terms of unauthorised use of wavelengths, danger to shipping and so on, but our principal objection is that they are commercial. We should be quite clear that there is a wide gulf between the position of my union and myself and hon. Members opposite. The pirates have worse characteristics in many ways than other forms of commercial radio might have.
I want to address myself in the few moments I have left to explaining my opposition and the opposition of the Musicians' Union to commercial radio. Wherever we see commercial radio operating throughout the world we see virtually unrestricted needle time and the use of gramophone records. It is interesting to note that when the Manx Radio case came before the Performing Right Tribunal, Manx Radio's case was that its economic viability depended on having an


unrestricted right to broadcast recorded copyright music and if it could not do that it could not appeal to the advertisers it required. Further, it wanted the use of records from Phonographic Performance Ltd. on the cheap. If some pirates pay some small contributions to the Performing Rights Society my information is that none of them is making any contribution to Phonographic Performance Ltd.
The opposition of the Musicians' Union to the pirates and to the policies of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter is based on the fact that the pirates represent a commercial undertaking and that the propositions being put forward by the Conservative Party are for commercial radio to be established on land. I am opposed to the introduction of commercial radio into this country and I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to bring forward the proposals in the Bill.
Had the Government brought forward proposals for a national network of commercial radio, the B.B.C. would certainly have lost one of its wavelengths. The hon. Member for Howden spoke about commercial-type radio and it was clear what he has in mind and what the commercial radio operators mean. They mean the very large use of recorded music. If we had a national programme run by a commercial network, there would be not only a duplication of the resources of the B.B.C.—at a time when our national resources are scarce and are needed for other desirable activities—but the B.B.C. would come under pressure to break the needle time agreement in order to compete with the commercial network. It would also mean that since the B.B.C. had lost a channel, there would be a further reduction of employment for live musicians on the channel which the B.B.C. had lost and on which employment for "live" musicians had been provided.
The hon. Member for Howden asked a number of questions and referred to me. I will try to answer them. He said he understood that the Musicians' Union was opposed to any further use of gramophone records on sound radio in Britain. One reason for that is that very few musicians earn their living from recordings. One of the major problems in the music profession—and I am speaking not only with the interests of the profession

in mind but also from the point of view of the national interest—is that throughout the post-war years, when I was working in the profession, there were clear signs that employment for musicians was narrowing.
If we are to have first-class session and star musicians we can get them only by having a broad base of employment through which they can gain experience. They used to gain this experience by working the music halls, which are closed, and the dance halls, which are no longer doing the business they used to do. That experience enabled the best musicians to get to the top.
In my part of the world, in which I used to employ a number of musicians, it has been evident that young brass men, wind and string players and other musicians are not coming forward. One sees the same old faces. The youngsters are not taking their place. The main reason for this is that the base of employment has narrowed in recent years.
If we were to have the unrestricted use of gramophone records we would have even further restriction in the amount of employment available for live musicians, not only in broadcasting but in other media. Eventually the standard of playing, even at the top—the musicians who do what is known in the business as the cream of the work—would fall and, as a result, the standard of recordings would fall.
For this reason the Musicians' Union is opposed to any further extension of needle time. We are not the only people opposed to such an extension. This is probably one of the few industries or professions in which both the people employing the capital in the industry and those working in it are in complete agreement. Sir Joseph Lockwood, Chairman of E.M.I., gave an interview to a reporter of the Sun on 29th October and the report stated:
Sir Joseph Lockwood … told me last night that he would refuse point-blank to allow his records to be played all day long by any commercial radio station, whether State-sponsored or not … Sir Joseph said, 'I would be appalled at the idea of records being played all day long by a legal radio station … I agree more or less with the Musicians' Union on this.'
The Musicians' Union and I believe that, in the interests of the union and the


public generally, there should be substantial employment opportunities for live performances by musicians both on national networks and in local radio. We should not get them if we had commercial radio, but we can get it if we adopt the public service principle, where there is not the pressure of advertising interests wanting to use gramophone records on the cheap. That is why they are attractive. They are very cheap to use.
The hon. Member for Howden pointed out the advantages of records. They are cheap, he said, and they are better. Some are different, but he will admit that great orchestras like the Northern Dance Orchestra put up first-class performances on the air.
He said that gramophone records are cheaper, and he asked if the interests of "these people" —presumably he meant the commercial interests—who want to use this cheap form cannot be reconciled with the interests of the Musicians' Union and, I would add, the national interests, in keeping a viable music profession by the giving of some kind of levy or dole.
In his words, that would mean a new outlook for musicians. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but there is something like that already. The Musicians' Union receives some payments from Phonographic Performance Limited, and uses them to make substantial grants to assist cultural and musical projects of all kinds.
However, we do not want levies. We want live employment. Why not use the money for live performances? Why should musicians accept a small part of the total saving made by using records? In addition, the B.B.C. will want to cut down still further on the number of live performances to be able to compete with commercial interests.
The hon. Gentleman says, "We will give the union money so that its people can have money handed out and can work." But where are they to work? I am thinking about some of the young local pop groups in my area who never get a chance on commercial radio in the system which exists. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's proposal will do anything to help the problem.
I approve of the Bill. It can lead to improvements for the employment of musicians in broadcasting. There is plenty of room for improvement. I hope that we shall get something from local radio as well as from the national network. The Government have delayed long enough on this, and I am pleased that the Bill is having a Second Reading tonight.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I want to begin by congratulating the Postmaster-General on a competent piece of news management in announcing today his very welcome decision about colour television. No doubt he hopes that tomorrow's newspapers will carry headlines about that and not about this Bill.
Those hon. Members opposite who oppose the Bill have remained silent. We know that there have been those who have expressed opposition to it outside the House, but they have kept very quiet today. Perhaps they will make a stand in the Division Lobby. If they do not, they will have some explaining to do to their constituents.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has not taken part in the debate. Last September in the Sunday Telegraph under the headline:
Manny Shinwell: prop of the pop pirates",
we read:
Speaking to tens of thousands of cheering teenagers at a beauty contest in his constituency last Monday, Shinwell proclaimed: 'If we had been living in the 17th and 18th centuries the people who run these stations would have been sailing the high seas with Francis Drake. But I will see they get a fair crack of the whip'.
Even though the right hon. Gentleman moderated his enthusiasm later, it is a pity that he has not turned his unrivalled buccaneering talents on the Postmaster-General who, with all respect to him, would not have been sailing the high seas in the days of Sir Francis Drake, but would have been staying at home perhaps stamping out the theatre and other sinful pleasures.
For one who so ostentatiously seeks to clothe himself in morality, the Postmaster-General is sometimes a bit free with his language. He was more careful today, but in spite of what he has said in the past the offshore ships operating outside territorial waters are not unlawful. No


doubt different considerations apply to many of the forts, but the offshore ships are not unlawful, and the Postmaster-General might have watched his language.
The right hon. Gentleman always makes much of the interference with other stations overseas which the pirates are said to cause, but, as Professor Alan Day has pointed out:
The criticism in terms of interference on the ether and unauthorised use of wavelengths has, in fact, been grossly exaggerated. In some circumstances almost any medium wave station can interfere with other broadcasts, and the evidence that the pirates are worse sinners than many other stations is remarkably thin.
On the other hand, there is very considerable foreign interference with British broadcasting. As has been said, foreign interference has reduced the night-time medium wave coverage of the B.B.C.'s Home Service, which in daylight is 97 per cent., to 63 per cent., and recently there has been bad interference on the Light Programme from Albania.
It is a remarkable fact that the Postmaster-General, admittedly egged on by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland), seems to be much more concerned with whether Radio London interferes with a few worthy Yugoslays trying to listen to Radio Zagreb on a Saturday night in Munich, than he is with foreign interference with British broadcasting.

Mr. Short: That is untrue.

Mr. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman say that that is untrue, but if he looks at HANSARD for 7th December. 1966, he will see that it is not.

Mr. Short: That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Member for Meriden asked:
Would my right hon. Friend say why he thinks that some hon. Gentlemen opposite are so concerned about interference by Radio Albania and are so little concerned with interference caused by pirate stations about which nine European stations have complaints?
The right answer to that was, "Of course understand. That is what everybody should be concerned about", instead of which the right hon. Gentleman agreed with his hon. Friend and said:
The Devil himself knoweth not the mind of the party opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1966; Vol. 737, c. 1328.]
The issue here is not one of legality or morality, but freedom of choice or

restrictive practices. The pirates have broken into certain well entrenched restrictive practices. They have annoyed the Musicians' Union by playing gramophone records. The Musicians' Union has an interest here, but that interest should not be allowed to override the interests of the public. The Musicians' Union can be safeguarded in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) this afternoon, and we believe that the interests of the listeners should come first.
I hope, therefore, that tonight the Assistant Postmaster-General will tell us what is the Government's attitude to this restriction. Do they intend to let the union stop listeners hearing the gramophone records which they want to hear for an indefinite future? What action are the Government taking on this matter? After the last debate the hon. Gentleman very courteously sent us letters answering our questions, for which we were all grateful, but that does not help other hon. Members in the House, and I shall therefore be grateful if tonight he will answer our questions in debate.
The unions are not the only people who pine for protection. Big business does, too. The large recording companies also object to these records being played. In fact, the leading pirates have agreed to make payments to the Performing Right Society, which looks after the rights of authors and composers, and have offered to make payments to Phonographic Performance Ltd., which represents the large record companies and which refuses to talk to the pirates. British copyright law is highly unusual in allowing record manufacturers to restrict the playing of records. That is another restrictive practice. The big manufacturers, in effect, say that the pirates are robbing them by playing their records without permission, thus depressing their sales.
There has been a decline in the sale of gramophone records, but there has also been a decline in the consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, motor cars and motor cycles, and I do not see how the pirates can be responsible for that. The economic situation, the end of the Beatle boom, and the fact that L.P.s are now very much cheaper than they were in relation to singles, are far more plausible


reasons for a decline in sales than any activities by the pop pirates.
Furthermore, E.M.I. pays more than £200,000 a year to have its records played on Radio Luxembourg. Surely that company does not believe in robbing itself. All record companies send their new releases to the pirate radios. E.M.I., for instance, is therefore in the position of saying, "It is not fair that you should just rob Decca; you must rob me, too". It is certainly a very odd form of robbery when the victims all queue up to be robbed.
The real grievance of the record companies may be that the pirates have given great opportunities for new small record companies—opportunities which they did not have before because the big companies have had virtually all the needle time on both the B.B.C. and Radio Luxembourg.
The third powerful interest that the pirates have offended is the B.B.C.—naturally anxious to preserve its monopoly, and naturally resentful of a practical demonstration that many people prefer programmes other than its own.
So here we have the Government defending the restrictive practices of the trade unions and of big business, and defending the restrictive monopoly of the B.B.C. Not surprisingly, the Government replacement for the pirates is just what those three organisations would wish.

Mr. George Wallace: The hon. Member says that the Government have defended big business. Is he defending the illegal action of illegal stations operating against conventions to which his own party subscribed when in power?

Mr. Gilmour: If the hon. Member had been here throughout the debate he would have heard the point of view of this side of the House. If he remains until the end of my speech he will hear my view.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member has referred to my absence during part of the debate. I was on a very important Committee, headed by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gilmour: I was not suggesting that the hon. Member had not spent his

day very profitably for the country. I was merely saying that he had not been here.
The Postmaster-General's solution is not what the public would want, and that is why we oppose it. We believe in freedom of choice for the listener, and, therefore, that commercial radio should be brought ashore. The Postmaster-General talks, instead, about public service principles. I have some scepticism as to what that means, as does the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan), from what he said earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Rowland: The hon. Member talks about commercial radio being brought ashore. Does he mean that the pirates now operating the offshore stations should be allowed franchises ashore, or does he mean something else?

Mr. Gilmour: I mean that an authority should be set up from which all sorts of people would no doubt try to gain franchises.
So far as I can make out, the nebulous phrase "public service principles", which puzzles the hon. Member for Uxbridge, means that the public should be made to pay for a service which some of them do not want and that they should be deprived of a service for which they do not have to pay and which many of them do want. In the pursuit of these principles the Government's proposed alternatives take two forms, both in varying degrees inadequate.
As the Daily Mirror pointed out in a leading article called "It's Still Auntie B.B.C.":
Only the bigwigs at Broadcasting House are likely to be satisfied with the Government's long-awaited White Paper on the future of radio and television.
The B.B.C. has agreed with the Government to have a more or less continuous music programme on 247, but it has a mysterious hiatus, from 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) pointed out.
But when Radio Manx applied to the Performing Right Tribunal, the B.B.C. characteristically opposed the extension of needle time partly on the grounds that more popular music would tend to lower public taste, as against the balanced programmes which they were producing.


Here we have the B.B.C. all set to lower public taste by producing an entirely unbalanced programme. This is the pattern of the B.B.C. They say that they will not give the public what they want, until somebody else does and then they say, "We are a public service and a monopoly; if the public wants this rubbish, it is we who should give it to them." And holding their noses, they then give it to them——

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the B.B.C. is not proposing a mere replacement of pop. Its suggestion is a balanced programme.

Mr. Gilmour: We had some difficulty earlier about where the hon. Gentleman got his information from. I am sure that not even the Postmaster-General would say that Radio 247 will be a balanced programme.
The major absurdity of the Government's alternative is in the so-called experiment in so-called local radio, which has been riddled with bullets by my right hon. Friend the Member for How-den and the rest of my hon. Friends and ridiculed in the Press. The Economist described the proposal as "appalling" and the Daily Mirror said that the Government showed that they were still in the cat's whisker and earphone stage.
It is not surprising that the Postmaster-General should have come up with the wrong answer. He seems to have excluded the relevant evidence from his consideration. In his White Paper he said that the provision of a service genuinely local in character
… would prove incompatible with the commercial objectives of companies engaging in local sound broadcasting;
The right hon. Gentleman should not put into an official paper a statement which is demonstrably untrue, as that statement is.
No doubt it would have been too much to expect the right hon. Gentleman to buccaneer off to Australia or Canada or America to study local broadcasting there, but he might have been expected, on a fine day, to get to the Isle of Man. He said that he knows about the Isle of Man, in which case he will know that there is a commercial radio station there which is working successfully and fulfilling all the requirements of local loyalty and

patriotism—yet he failed to mention it in the White Paper.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will tell us why the White Paper treated that station as if it did not exist. I hope that we shall have an explanation of the indefensible omission from the White Paper. Radio Manx has shown the way for local radio in this country—except that there the Press does not take part and I believe that it should in the rest of the country. However, such evidence as there is indicates that Radio Manx is more popular than the pirates or the B.B.C. in the Isle of Man and that it is a genuinely community station.
The first requirement for such a station is that the community should listen to it, which it what the hon. Member for Meriden seemed to forget. He made an eloquent defence of the B.B.C.'s monopoly, but what it amounted to was that people should not be allowed to listen to what they want. He accuses us, in effect of cultural freedom. What he puts forward is cultural dictatorship. He said that tastes would be lowered because people would be given what they want. That attitude is repuguant to us. The trouble with the sort of programmes which he would like and which he admires is that people simply would not listen to them, whereas commercial radio, under a sort of I.T.A. control, would give people what they want, would create an audience, and therefore would create a community station.

Mr. Rowland: I ask the hon. Gentleman to go the United States and keep his ears open. If he did, I wonder if he would not then agree with me that, if there is a multiplicity of commercially-owned stations, there is gradually a low level of programming which is remarkably similar one station with another. The British system of broadcasting is well regarded because it has a great degree of diversity, professionally well done.

Mr. Gilmour: I have been to the United States of America. I did to some extent keep my ears open and it struck me that the local radio there was an extremely beneficent institution. I would very much welcome it here. The advertising is part of the service. It is part of the localism. The local retailer on radio can compete with the chains, which he cannot do on television. People want


to know where the local bargains are. It is surely ridiculous that, if a British businessman wants to advertise on the wireless, he will, after the passage of the Bill, have to use a foreign station. By what species of logic can it be argued that it is right to have commercial radio outside this country and a B.B.C. monopoly here? Why on earth should Radio Luxembourg be privileged and protected in this way? Whether or not we go into the Common Market, British businessmen will want to advertise in Europe. They will not be able to on a British station. They will have to use a French station. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General thinks that is desirable. I cannot believe that he does.
We believe, therefore, that the Government's proposals are absurd. There is a three-to-one majority in this country in favour of commercial radio, and we believe that that majority is right.
Last year the Postmaster-General said:
Pirates on these stations present a very squalid picture of which I hope no one in any part of the House is proud.
Let us see how squalid that picture is. First, these stations have an audience of between 10 million and 20 million. Evidently, those people do not think the pirates squalid, and I assume that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to include the audience in his somewhat sweeping condemnation.
Secondly, the pirate stations are supported by some of the most respectable and respected firms in the country: Cadburys, Frys, Rowntrees—great Quaker firms. Are they squalid? Heinzes, Kelloggs, B.P.—51 per cent. owned by the Government. Is that squalid?

Mr. Rowland: Mr. Rowlandrose——

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I will not give way. The Citrus Board of Israel, Lever Bros., Penguin Books, I.C.I.—are they squalid? The Daily Mail, the Daily Express—
[Interruption.]—All right. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are squalid, what about the Daily Mirror, with its director of the Bank of England? Dr. Barnardo's Homes and Oxfam—are they squalid? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that these organisations are either squalid or would support anything that was squalid?
Nor, indeed, have the programmes that these pirates have put out been squalid. Indeed, I think that there are some people who think that any squalor there has been on the air has been put out, not by the pirate radios, but by the B.B.C. Pirates have provided, if the Postmaster-General will pardon the expression, a public service. Now, instead of that public service, he proposes to give them something that the public does not want.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the choice tonight is between legality and illegality, between morality and immorality. In fact, the choice is between none of these. It is between deciding the future of broadcasting according to the wants of the public and deciding it according to the sterile restrictionist prejudices of the Labour Government, between giving the listener what he wants and giving the three powerful interests, the B.B.C., the Musicians' Union and the record companies what it suits them to have.
We know whose side we are on—the listener's. The Government are on the side of the restrictive pressure groups. No matter how much moralistic cant the right hon. Gentleman pours over the Government's decision, the result is clear. The Postmaster-General has abandoned the listener all the way down the line and caved in to the special interests.
It scarcely becomes the right hon. Gentleman to preach legality or morality or to talk about international agreements. The Government have been in office for two and a half years, and only now have they let their morality get the better of them. The Labour Government made no mention of this Bill in their election manifesto. Neither the present Postmaster-General nor his predecessor mentioned the pirates in his election address. Evidently, they did not think it opportune to confide their concern for legality to their voters. For two and a half years, therefore, the Government's attitude has, in practice, been the same as that enjoined in the Opposition's Amendment. They have delayed dealing with the pirates until they had an alternative. The only difference is that the alternative they have now produced is utterly unacceptable.
The Government are in no position to prate about legality or morality. Their


record is appalling. We have heard a lot about international agreements. They broke eight international agreements in their first two weeks of office.
The trouble with the Postmaster-General is that he still has the attitude of a Labour Chief Whip. He thinks that he can dragoon the people of this county as he used to dragoon hon. Members opposite in the last Parliament and as they are being dragooned tonight. He is trying to treat the public not as Lobby fodder but as listening fodder. He will not succeed, and it is wrong that he should try.
Because we believe in the freedom of the British people to choose what they want, and because we deplore the monopoly restrictionism which is being imposed upon them by the Postmaster-General, we oppose the Bill tonight.

9.3 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): The speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) was a good knock-about effort. When he says, as another hon. Member did earlier, that we made no provision in our election manifesto for this Bill, I remind him—I am not sure whether he was in the House at the time—that at the General Election of 1955 the Tory Government did not mention in their election manifesto the 1957 Rent Act, which brought great oppression to many people in this country.
Hon. Members who have been here during the debate will agree that we have had a full and valuable discussion of the issues raised by the Bill. Before turning to the Bill itself, I shall deal with some of the criticisms of the Government's proposals in relation to plans for a national popular music programme and for local sound broadcasting.
The view advanced by hon. Members opposite comes down to this: the programmes put out by the pirate stations are popular; the stations ought, therefore, to be allowed to continue until a substitute has been provided in duly licensed form on land, that the substitute should take the form of stations operated by commercial companies drawing their income from advertising, and that the Government's proposals for additional sound broadcast programmes do not, in their opinion, adequately fill

the gap that the disappearance of the pirates will leave. The Government fully accept that there is a demand for a more or less continuous programme of light music, and the B.B.C. plans to provide that later in the year.
What we cannot accept is that because of those demands, which we in no way underestimate, we should be prepared to disregard our obligations to preserve law and order in the use of wavelengths, and our obligation to our neighbours in Europe to rid their broadcasting services of the nuisance which has been created on our doorstep. Nor can we accept that those obligations should be thrust on one side until we might find them more convenient to honour.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who has had a close working knowledge of the problem and its implications, generously recognised the nature of the Government's responsibilities. As my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has said, it was under the Conservative Government that this country quite properly accepted the obligations of the international Radio Regulations, and began to play a leading part in the preparation of the European Agreement, to give effect to which the present Bill has been brought before the House.
It is no new thing for the actions of hon. Members opposite to speak less loudly than their words in matters of this kind, and then to sink to a whisper when principle comes into conflict with private gain. The picture they have tried to draw is of a spoil-sport Government determined for doctrinaire reasons to put a stop to something which is both harmless and universally popular. That just does not wash. The Government's plans make clear their concern that theie should be a continuing development of sound broadcasting to meet the widening and changing tastes of all sections of the community.
When one looks at the matter more closely, is it the case that the activities of the pirate stations are universally popular? The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central and other hon. Members opposite tried to suggest that, and to say how popular those programmes are. They are not popular, to put it mildly, with the composers and performers whose works they steal. The promoters of the pirate


stations have done their best to blur that point. They have claimed that they make copyright payments.
The truth of the matter is set out in a statement by the British Copyright Council, which many hon. Members have seen and from which they have quoted. The last paragraph of that statement says that:
… the Performing Right Society has informed the offshore broacasters that it will not consider itself inhibited by acceptance of these payments from continuing its opposition of principle to the pirates because, among other reasons, no sum, however large, could compensate copyright owners for the defiance and undermining of those laws under the protection of which they can pursue their creative work.
Moreover, the pirate stations are not popular with our neighbours in Europe who, because of them, are unable to hear their own broadcasting services. The backers of the pirate stations have tried in the course of the debate to bring forward arguments to dispute those propositions. Significantly, their arguments are put forward on a serious of alternative grounds, which I will mention in the ascending order of their irresponsibility. The first is that pirate stations do not cause serious interference to continental broadcasting. The second is that, if they do, they are far from being the only broacasting stations in Europe operating outside the framework of the Copenhagen plan. The third is that it does not matter much anyway, since they only bring a little more chaos to broadcasting bands which are already over-full.
It is difficult to take this argument seriously. It does not require a very sophisticated calculation by radio engineers to show that stations operating with the power and on the wavelength used by the pirates are bround to interfere with broadcasting in other parts of Europe. The fact that they do so is attested by the strong representations we have received from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Hungary, the Irish Republic, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. I would only add that the representations would have been a good deal stronger if it were not for the fairness and restraint shown by other Governments who have recognised that we have no present legal

powers to deal with stations on the high seas.
The argument that there are many other broadcasting stations in Europe for which there was no provision in the Copenhagen plan ignores a point of fundamental importance. The additional stations on land have been authorised by sovereign States which control in detail the technical conditions under which the stations operate, and the countries affected by the transmissions from these stations have the possibility of making representations to the Governments controlling the stations and ensuring adjustments as necessary.
The pirates, on the other hand, are unauthorised and beyond control. They have seized frequencies regardless of the consequences on the European countries affected and which have no means of redress. The argument that because there is already difficulty in the medium-wave broadcasting bands and that we should, therefore, feel free to make a contribution to turning this state of affairs into chaos is one that, in a spirit of charity, I will refrain from dissecting.
Hon. Members opposite have argued that all these difficulties would disappear if the pirates were allowed to come ashore and continue their activities as properly licensed stations in this country. To that I reply, first, that the problems of interference to broadcasting services on the Continent would be in no way abated by bringing the pirates ashore and, secondly, that the Government are determined, as my right hon. Friend said and the White Paper makes clear, to uphold the principle of public service broadcasting.
Other hon. Members have suggested that the new popular music programme will be so B.B.C. in style that some other replacement for the pirates whose broadcasting has given pleasure to so many will have to be found. I do not see why that need be so. There are many audiences for popular music. There are many kinds of popular music. It would be wrong to turn the popular music programme into an exclusive service which catered only for one audience and provided only a limited range of popular music.
Popular music, as I understand it, is not only the current top twenty. Of course, the latest hits must always have


their place but so must other popular music. There are many different tastes in popular music and the new programme must do its best to cater for as many of them as possible.

Mr. Bryan: Before the Assistant Postmaster-General leaves the question of wavelengths, could he answer the point that I put to him during my speech, regarding the possibilities of making noninterference arrangements, as other countries have done, with stations abroad?

Mr. Slater: I will come to that point, but I must carry on with my speech. I have to try to answer the very wide range of questions which hon. Gentlemen have asked.
It has also been argued that a single popular music programme, whatever its merits, will not provide the same variety and range of choice that the pirate stations, collectively, provide now. I remind the House that the wavelengths allocated to this country under international agreement are sufficient for the three existing B.B.C. services and the new music programme. Those who enjoy light music have no cause for complaint if one of the four services is devoted almost exclusively to meeting their needs. The greater range of choice offered by the pirate stations is only possible, of course, because they are pirating other countries' wavelengths.
More generally, it has been claimed that the Government are wrong in continuing the B.B.C.'s monopoly of sound broadcasting. I recognise that there is room for more than one view on this question of monopoly, and at this late hour, I would not wish to embark on a philosophical discussion of its pros and cons. I would only remind the House of some severely practical considerations.
The B.B.C. has a chain of transmitters which, at trifling capital cost, can be adapted to the purposes of the new music programme. No other body could provide the service so cheaply or so quickly. Regarding local sound broadcasting, there will be general agreement that we could not seriously contemplate setting up a new broadcasting authority for the purposes of an experiment on the limited scale that the Government are proposing.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed the view that it would have been better for these new developments in sound broadcasting to be financed by advertising rather than from licence-fee revenue. As the White Paper makes plain, the Government are not opposed in principle to advertising as a means of financing broadcasting under public ownership, although I remind hon. Members that broadcasting, however it is financed, has ultimately to be paid for, in one way or another, by the listening and viewing public. It would help to put this question in perspective if I mentioned a few facts and figures for which hon. Members have asked.
The capital cost of the new music programme will, as I have said, be small, and the running costs will increase B.B.C. expenditure by only about £200,000 a year. The capital cost of the nine stations in the local radio experiment will be about £300,000 and the running costs about £500,000 a year. The cost to the B.B.C. will be less than this, because it will be offset by contributions from local sources, and the indications are that these will be substantial.

Mr. Bryan: Is this for the actual experiment?

Mr. Slater: Yes.

Mr. Bryan: On this question, I quoted from the B.B.C. hand-out, which we received, which said that the B.B.C. itself would pay the capital costs this year.

Mr. Slater: The running costs will be met from local sources. The Government recognise that if a permanent and general service of local radio were authorised, much greater expenditure would be involved. As the White Paper makes clear, the method of financing permanent services is one of the matters on which the Government would wish to take a view at the end of the experiment if local sources of finance proved to be insufficient.

Mr. Bryan: The B.B.C. says that in order to get the experiment off the ground it is prepared to provide the capital cost of the nine stations and also the running costs of 1967–68, and goes on to say that it is hoped that next year the councils will pay.

Mr. Slater: The response has been very good and I have nothing further to add.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued that the nine-station experiment should not be confined to the B.B.C. and that commercial companies should be allowed to participate, or that the service should be entrusted to some new public authority. I ask them to keep in mind the fact that we are discussing—and I reiterate that we are discussing—an experiment. There is no commitment to a general and permanent service. We on this side of the House have high expectations of a local radio service properly organised and run on the public service principle, but it is right to put expectation to the test before committing the country to a full-scale service.
That is why there is to be an experiment, an experiment to establish the basis on which a local service of high quality can be maintained month in and month out. After all, one does not set up a new organisation for the purposes of an experiment and the obvious course is to entrust the experiment to the one existing organisation which, under the terms of the franchise, can take it on. I reiterate that it is an experiment and the Government's position about what happens at the end of the experiment is entirely reserved.
Some hon. Members were concerned about the proposals in the White Paper for financing local radio. These are not so difficult to understand, but they seem to have led to some misunderstanding. The White Paper starts from the proposition that, given the essentially local objectives of the service, it seems right that its income should derive as far as possible from local sources and not from a general licence fee. There is no need to put too absolute a construction on this. I would have thought that there was a self-evident case for looking for local financial support. The response so far to the Government scheme suggests that we shall not be looking in vain for it and that the difficulty will not be to find localities which are willing to make a financial contribution, but to make a choice among those which have offered to meet the whole or a great proportion of the cost of the experiment. Nevertheless, it would be a complete misunderstanding to suppose that the experiment or stations will go only to those places

which promise the greatest financial support. The prospect of local financial support will, of course, be an important factor, but the governing consideration will be the need to obtain the widest range of experience and information from the experiment.
Sponsorship is expressly precluded by the terms of the B.B.C. licence and agreement. The idea is that a local authority would contribute to the extent that services for which it is responsible can properly command its support. There are a number of ways in which services provided by local authorities will be furthered by local radio run on public service lines. These services are, of course, in part paid for out of the rates and it follows that contributions to the stations in respect of these services would form part of an authority's expenditure on them. In short, the contribution would not be in respect of the stations as such, but in respect of the various services which the station would promote. After all, local authorities pay for advertisements in the local Press, but by no stretch of the imagination could that be called a subvention to the newspaper.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) sought to show that the new music programme will leave large areas of the Midlands uncovered. On my information, that is not the case. It is true that the Midlands is not covered by the 247 metre transmission of the Light Programme but the B.B.C. will be bringing into operation a reserve transmitter at Droitwich, which will give adequate coverage throughout the Midlands.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), in a very interesting speech effectively catalogued the reasons why pirate broadcasting must be stopped. It was a comprehensive catalogue and I thank him for it. During the course of his speech he went on to argue, somewhat surprisingly, that in spite of the need for the Bill, he would feel impelled to vote against it. He was reluctant to face the logical conclusion of the facts that he had set out. He said that there would still not be as much choice of programme as he would like, but he omitted to suggest how the area of choice might be extended. He seemed to argue that there would be more choice if the additional stations were financed commercially than if they were not. With respect, I think that the


opposite would be the case. For a given number of stations one must get a wider variety of programmes if the stations are not preoccupied with audience ratings.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Sir Knox Cunningham (Antrim, South)rose——

Mr. Slater: I have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, like many others, who have never sought to interest themselves in this debate. I have endeavoured to concentrate upon answering those points most relevant to the issues before us. Many hon. Members have expressed views about who should and who should not be allowed to run broadcasting stations. Important as this is, it does not undermine the principles of this Bill. We will have to see how the proposals work out in practice, but the plain fact remains that this legislation is necessary.
The adventurers operating broadcasting stations around our coast are doing so in defiance of international agreements. It ought not to be forgotten by Members of this House that after 60 years of fruitful international co-operation in the use

of the frequency spectrum for the common good the nations of the world, and this country in particular, are faced for the first time, with the need to demonstrate by means of legislation, that restraints on the use of radio frequencies which have to be observed on land must also be observed at sea. This is a matter of international concern, and the need to take action is self-evident whatever the pattern of broadcasting in the country.

This Bill will stop the pirates broadcasting around our shores. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will it?"] It will be quite wrong for the House to regard it as just a repressive measure. It is basically constructive and it will help restore the rule of law and enable us to honour our obligations to other European countries. It is for these reasons that I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 300. Noes 213.

Division No. 271.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ennals, David


Albu, Austen
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ensor, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chapman, Donald
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Alldritt, Walter
Coe, Denis
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'ham, Yardley)


Allen, Scholefield
Coleman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, J. D.
Fernyhough, E.


Archer, Peter
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Ashley, Jack
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Floud, Bernard


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Foley, Maurice


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Barnett, Joel
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Ford, Ben


Baxter, William
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Forrester, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fowler, Gerry


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Ridwell, Sydney
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Gardner, Tony


Binns, John
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Garrett, W. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Delargy, Hugh
Ginsburg, David


Blackburn, F.
Dell, Edmund
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Gourley, Harry


Boardman, H.
Dewar, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Booth, Albert
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Boston, Terence
Dickens, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Boyden, James
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Donnelly, Desmond
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Bradley, Tom
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunnett, Jack
Hamling, William


Brooks, Edwin
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harper, Joseph


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Eadie, Alex
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Edelman, Maurice
Haseldine, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hattersley, Roy


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Henig, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Ellis, John
Hazell, Bert


Carmichael, Neil
English, Michael
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret




Hooley, Frank
Mapp, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Horner, John
Marquand, David
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Roy
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mayhew, Christopher
Ryan, John


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mellish, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert


Howie, W.
Millan, Bruce
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hoy, James
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skeffington, Arthur


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Slater, Joseph


Janner, Sir Barnett
Moyle, Roland
Small, William


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Snow, Julian


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Murray, Albert
Spriggs, Leslie


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Newens, Stan
Steele,Thomas(Dunbartonshire, W.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, s.)
Stonehouse, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Norwood, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Kenyon, Clifford
O'Malley, Brian
Swingler, Stephen


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Oram, Albert E.
Symonds, J. B.


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Orme, Stanley
Taverns, Dick


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Thornton, Ernest


Ledger, Ron
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Tinn, James


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Padley, Walter
Tomney, Frank


Lee, John (Reading)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tuck, Raphael


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Park, Trevor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lewis, Ron. (Carlisle)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walder, Brian (All Saints)


Lipton, Marcus
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurence
Wallace, George


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Luard, Evan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Weitzman, David


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pentland, Norman
Wellbeloved, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McBride, Neil
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


McCann, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Whitlock, William


MacColl, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


MacDermot, Niall
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Macdonald, A. H.
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McGuire, Michael
Randall, Harry
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rankin, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Redhead, Edward
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mackie, John
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Maclennan, Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Richard, Ivor
Winterbottom, R. E.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Woof, Robert


MacPherson, Malcolm
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Yates, Victor


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roebuck, Roy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Manuel, Archie
Rose, Paul
Mr. George Lawson.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Corfield, F. V.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Braine, Bernard
Costain, A. P.


Astor, John
Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Shelthorne)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver


Awdry, Daniel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Crouch, David


Baker, W. H. K.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Balniel, Lord
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Currie, G. B. H.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Dalkeith, Earl of


Batsford, Brian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dance, James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Bullus, Sir Eric
d'Avigdor-Goldamid, Sir Henry


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gas. &amp; Fhm)
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Campbell, Gordon
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Bessell, Peter
Carlisle, Mark
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Biffen, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Chanson, H. P. G.
Doughty, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Clark, Henry
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Eden, Sir John


Body, Richard
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cordle, John
Errington, Sir Eric







Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Fisher, Nigel
Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Foster, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Ridsdale, Julian


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Roots, William


Glyn, Sir Richard
Loveys, W. H.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Godhart, Philip
Lubbock, Eric
Russell, Sir Ronald


Goodhew, Victor
McAddan, Sir Stephen
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Sharples, Richard


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gresham Cooke, R.
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, John


Grieve, Percy
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maginnis, John E.
Stodart, Anthony


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple, John M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper
Tilney, John


Hay, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Heseltine, Michael
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Dame Joan


Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Hooson, Emlyn
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Hornby, Richard
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Webster, David


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peyton, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodnutt, Mark


Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton
Wylie, N. R.


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Younger, Hn. George


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Francis Pym and




Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Bill read a Second time.


Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[14th February]

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES

Resolution reported,


1. That, upon the re-registration of a company under the Companies Act 1948 in pursuance of any provision included in an Act of this Session to amend the law relating to companies (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act'), there shall—


(a) if the company is registered with limited liability and is to be re-registered as unlimited, be charged on articles lodged with the registrar of companies with the application for re-registration, a stamp duty of ten shillings; and


(b) if the company is unlimited and is to be re-registered with limited liability and a share capital, be charged on a statement of the amount of the share capital to be delivered to the registrar of companies the like ad valorem stamp duty as would be charged if the company were being registered under the Companies Act 1948 with limited liability and a share capital of that amount.


2. That, in respect of the several matters mentioned in column 1 of the Table set out below, there shall be paid to the registrar of companies the several fees specified in column 2 of that Table, or such greater fees as may be specified in regulations made by the Board of Trade.

TABLE


Matter in respect of which Fee is payable
Amount of Fee


For registration on its formation under the Companies Act 1948 of a company as one limited by shares, registration under that Act in pursuance of Part VIII thereof of a company as one so limited (not being a company in whose case the liability of the members thereof was, before registration in pursuance of that Part, limited by some other Act or by letters patent) or re-registration under the Companies Act 1948 in pursuance of the new Act of a company as one limited by shares.
If the nominal capital does not exceed £2,000, the sum of £20.



If the nominal capital exceeds £2,000 but does not exceed £5,000, the sum of £20 with the addition of £1 for each £1,000 or part of £1,000 of nominal capital in excess of £2,000.



If the nominal capital exceeds £5,000 but does not exceed £100,000, the sum of £23 with the addition of 5s. for each £1,000 or part of £1,000 of nominal capital in excess of £5,000.



If the nominal capital exceeds £100,000, the sum of £46 15s. 0d. with the addition of 1s. for each £1,000 or part of £1,000 of nominal capital in excess of £100,000.


For registration on its formation under the Companies Act 1948 of a company as one not having a share capital, registration under that Act in pursuance of Part VIII thereof of a company as one limited by guarantee and not having a share capital or re-registration under that Act in pursuance of the new Act of a company as one so limited and not having a share capital.
If the number of members stated in the articles does not exceed 25, the sum of £20.



If the number of members stated in the articles exceeds 25, but does not exceed 100, the sum of £20 with the addition of £1 for each 25 members or fraction of 25 members in excess of the first 25.



If the number of members stated in the articles exceeds 100 but is not stated to be unlimited the sum of £23 with the addition of 5s. for each 50 members or fraction of 50 members after the first 100.



If the number of members is stated in the articles to be unlimited, the sum of £38.


For registration on its formation under the Companies Act 1948 of a company as one limited by guarantee and having a share capital or as an unlimited one having a share capital, registration under that Act in pursuance of Part VIII thereof of a company as one so limited and having a share capital or re-registration under that Act in pursuance of the new Act of a company as one limited by guarantee and having a share capital.
The same amount as would be charged for registration if the company were limited by shares or the same amount as would be so charged if the company had not a share capital, whichever is the higher.


For re-registration of a company under the Companies Act 1948 in pursuance of the new Act as unlimited.
£5.


For registration of an increase in the share capital of a company.
An amount equal to the difference (if any) between the amount which, were the company being registered on its formation under the Companies Act 1948, would be payable by reference to its capital as increased and the amount which, were the company being so registered, would be payable by reference to its capital immediately before the increase.

Matter in respect of which Fee is payable
Amount of Fee


For registration of an increase in the membership of a company limited by guarantee or an unlimited company.
An amount equal to the difference (if any) between the amount which, were the company being registered on its formation under the Companies Act 1948 as a company limited by guarantee or as an unlimited company, would be payable by reference to its membership as increased and the amount which, were the company being so registered as such a company, would be payable by reference to its membership immediately before the increase.


For registration of a copy of an annual return or copies of documents delivered to the registrar of companies in compliance with section 410 of the Companies Act 1948.
£3.


For entering on the register the name of a company assumed by virtue of the passing of a special resolution by virtue of section 18(1) of the Companies Act 1948.
£10.

3. That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of fines imposed under any provision of the new Act.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (IMPROVEMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That his House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On Sunday mornings when I visit my constituents who have moved from slum houses into new council houses I find that their chief joy, particularly among young mothers, is their bathrooms. But what about those left behind, still living in the older houses?
It is unfair that mothers should be forced to bring up their children in houses without baths, hot water or inside lavatories. It is wrong that when a worker comes home from his job, maybe a dirty job, and wants to wash his feet he must ask his wife to put the kettle on and bring the old enamel basin out of the cupboard. I know of one home in which two children have been seriously scalded because every drop of hot water must be heated in a saucepan on the gas stove in the overcrowded kitchen.
It is not very nice for mothers in some towns who do not have lavatories in their homes to have to take a pail across a square to the w.c. or who must even go down the street with it. Nor is it right that very young or old people should

have to go out at night, in cold or wet weather, when they wish to use the lavatory. Families will be living in homes such as these for the next 40 years unless sweeping changes take place. The purpose of this debate is to urge that those sweeping changes be made.
There are 820,000 houses officially condemned as unfit for human habitation, and these must be pulled down and replaced as quickly as possible. Including those houses, altogether there are 3 million lacking a bath, and most of them lack hot water and an inside lavatory as well. These are the homes of 10 million men, women and children, or one family in five. This is in the year 1967, in the age of the alleged affluent society and the equally alleged Welfare State.
I want to make it clear that this is a national problem. Even in the wealthy Metropolis of London, there are some boroughs where one in three families lives in a house without a bath. Half of these bathless old houses are concentrated in 24 local authorities, mainly in the Lancashire and Yorkshire industrial towns. A quarter of all unfit houses are to be found in four cities—Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield.
It is significant that the Ministry decided to hold its survey in depth of the problem in Deeplish, Rochdale. This is a Coronation Street area, deep in the heart of Granadaland. Incidentally, I understand that this is the first time that the Deeplish Report has been mentioned in debate in the House.
That Report showed that one in two houses in Deeplish lacks a bath, and a high proportion are without inside w.c.s.


and hot water. The worst evil is the all-pervading dampness of the houses. The residents are mostly on low incomes, and in fact one in three are receiving under £10 a week. Of course, that includes oldage pensioners. The majority are owner-occupiers.
Even if we reach our housing target, many of those three million houses will have to stand for 30 years or more. Moreover, large numbers of them are structurally sound. It is the lack of the three essentials—bath, hot water and inside w.c.—which make them so undesirable to live in.
Many of the residents, given those three amenities, do not want to move. Take the case of a railwayman living near his work who starts work at 3 a.m. How can he move to overspill, perhaps eight miles away, and get to his job at that time in the morning? Then again, many of them do not wish to lose contact with their relatives nearby, some of them possibly invalids whom they help to look after; nor do they wish to move away from neighbours whom they have known for years.
I need not point out the saving financially. The Deeplish Report estimates £400 for a typical improvement. That is ridiculously high. I am happy to say that Salford, which improved 200 houses last year, averaged £190 per house, half of which is paid by the landlord, to cover the full improvement cost. In contrast, a new flat, including land, may cost £3,500.
Generous grants are now available, for up to half the cost of £310, from the Government and local authorities. In addition to that £155 grant, which increases the value of their assets, landlords are allowed to raise their rents by 12½ per cent. of their share of the cost. This might be thought to be a gift for the property owners. Owner-occupiers and councils with old houses lacking bathrooms have very sensibly made good use of the grants, but, with a handful of honourable exceptions, the landlords will not be bothered.
Only 103,000 houses were improved last year. Of those, only about one in five were private landlords' houses. I estimate that about one in 27 of owner-occupiers in structurally sound houses

needing improvements are actually improving them, against about one in 200 of private landlords.
Why has there been such an abysmal failure? It is not through lack of desire by the occupiers in the overwhelming mass of cases. "Having one's own bathroom is an impossible dream for ordinary people like me," says one widow. In Sheffield, no fewer than 22,000 people visited a demonstration of improved houses in the city, and another 6,000 went to a special exhibition, so widespread is the longing. Yet I doubt whether 100 landlords in Sheffield applied for improvement grants in the following 12 months.
The experience of many tenants of private landlords, I regret to say, is that it is exceedingly hard to get them to do urgently needed repairs, never mind make these desirable improvements.
Mainly as a result of pressure by local M.P.s, the Conservative Government were induced to pass the Housing Act, 1964, which in certain circumstances gives a local authority the power to compel landlords to improve their houses, where the house is suitable, if it has a life of over 15 years and the tenant requests it. With some splendid exceptions such as Leeds, Salford, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Norwich, little use has been made of these compulsory powers, and the numbers improved are still utterly inadequate.
In Leeds, 11,000 houses have been improved, thanks to the drive of the Housing Committee and its Chairman, Councillor K. C. Cohen. They have used persuasion, backed by the right to compel as the last resort, which they seldom need to use. In Norwich it is mainly old council houses which have been improved.
Why do not landlords respond? I repeat that many of them just will not be bothered. There are other reasons, too. In such areas as Deeplish there is a high proportion of elderly and poor landlords with perhaps one or two houses who cannot raise even their half of the cost. There are elderly tenants or owner-occupiers who do not want to be disturbed by the necessary alterations to their houses. Some progressive councils such as Salford have put tremendous effort into improvement schemes, but have been delayed and have encountered the need for additional staff and expense because of the extremely cumbersome and lengthy


procedure which has to be followed. The Public Health inspectors may have to make up to seven visits to an individual house, and have to get up to 24 forms completed before they can finish the work.
I understand that the Ministry is preparing to launch a big new drive to improve these older homes, and is considering fresh tactics. This is most welcome, and I hope that we shall hear a little more about it this evening. A real sense of urgency is what is needed. May I ask the Minister, his Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, and their staffs, to consider the following proposals. Some of them are included in the report by the Advisory Committee "Our Older Homes", some in "The Deeplish Study", some come from Salford and Leeds, and some are my humble own. They might be considered as the "Ten Pillars of Wisdom", though whether my hon. Friend will regard them in that light remains to be seen!
First, the minimum length of life of a house required before the grant is made should be reduced well below 15 years. The Advisory Committee recommends seven years as far as a w.c., a sink with hot water supply, and a food store are concerned. I agree with the seven years for these, but why not a bath, too? Is it good enough to expect a mother to live for 15 years without a bath in the house? By that time her children will have grown up and missed the proper childhood to which they were entitled. In any case, it is very difficult for many local authorities to guarantee that 15 years hence the house will still be standing, and thus they are often unable to provide the grants.
Secondly, I do not agree that a ventilated food store is a necessity. Indeed, when I have visited houses fitted with them I have often noticed that the housewife has boarded up the ventilation to stop dust and dirt getting in. They are the least appreciated of the improvements, and should be optional. Many residents would prefer to pay for a refrigerator.
Thirdly, there should be 100 per cent. loans for small landlords without the means to pay their half of the improvement. The local authorities are the best people to administer this. I suggest, in addition, that the Government should help to provide these loans, not at the

current market rate of 6¾ per cent., but at 4 per cent., as the Government are prepared to do for new council house building under the Housing Subsidies Act.
Fourthly, there should be a drastic curtailment and shortening of the present procedure which local authorities have to follow in getting the work done. I should like to send the Minister a long list of constructive proposals on this point made by the public health inspectors of Salford. One of the most radical of these suggestions is that the declaration of an improvement area should follow the lines of either a clearance or a smoke-control area. In those cases objectors are dealt with at a local public inquiry at one period of time. Failure to comply with the conditions of the area are dealt with by the simple service of notice, and if necessary by default action by the local authority.
Fifthly, in the case of those tenants or owner-occupiers over the age of 60 who may not wish to be disturbed, there should be no compulsion until the house changes tenant.
Sixthly, the proposal made recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) that the grant should also cover replacement of old and faulty electric wiring is an excellent one.
Seventhly, the Minister should ask all local authorities with houses lacking hot water, baths and an inside w.c. to submit schemes to him within a given time limit. There are plenty of backsliders.
Eighthly, publicity should be used, particularly on television, to show tenants, occupiers and landlords how homes can be transformed; the grants now available; and the right to compulsory improvements in given circumstances.
Ninthly, much greater use should be made of the knowledge of that devoted body of men, the public health inspectors. It is astonishing that there is not a single public health inspector on the permanent staff of the Ministry, yet these are the men with personal experience of the problem. Six out of eight who gave evidence to the Advisory Committee were public health inspectors, but not one had been included on the Committee.
Tenthly, I would strongly resist pressure from some quarters for an increase in the present 12½ per cent. of the cost


by which landlords are allowed to raise their rents. This would discourage tenants from agreeing to improvements, because it would further raise their rents.
Admittedly, a dramatically big and successful drive will cost money, although only a fraction of what would have been spent on new houses. This money must be forthcoming and it is a real priority need. The Minister knows where I think that the money should come from—drastic arms cuts. For the cost of refitting the "Ark Royal"—£30 million —Government and local authorities between them could improve no fewer than 300,000 houses. People would say that bathrooms should come before bombers and aircraft carriers. For the cost of four Polaris submarines—£370 million—3·7 million houses could be improved, which is more than the total number needed to be improved.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The economics of my hon. Friend are almost too simple for me, and the idea that we could abolish the "Ark Royal" and have all these improvements overnight is a somewhat doubtful one.
My hon. Friend has shown a long and continuous interest in this important issue. Indeed, since October, 1965, he has asked about a dozen Questions about the need to get more of our older houses improved, or on related topics. I do not complain about that, for not only has he helped to keep me on my toes: more often than not he has brought me to my feet and kept me there. Tonight, therefore, I may be excused if I do not rehearse too many statistics that my hon. Friend and the House by now know full well. I will give enough only to put the problem in its true perspective.
Over 1 million houses have now been improved with the aid of grant, since the Labour Government in 1949 first introduced the improvement grant system. This is a creditable achievement, but it is by no means good enough. Probably at least another two million houses with lives of at least 15 years need improvement with the provision of basic amenities, like a bath, hot water and an inside w.c. We will know with a good deal more certainty what that figure is when

our national sample survey of the conditions of our older houses is completed in the Spring. But whatever the precise figure, we appreciate already that there is a formidable task of house improvement ahead.
To consider more clearly how we should tackle that task it is helpful to have a closer look at the existing grant system: to see where it is working well and where it might with advantage be streamlined. My hon. Friend has pointed out some of the defects that now hinder unimpeded improvement and the provision of basic amenities, and I will also mention some others.
I should first like to remind the House what an attraction improvement grants have been to owner-occupiers. Indeed, in the last five years improvement grants of all kinds made to owner-occupiers have represented about half the total, including those for local authorities improving their own houses. Owner-occupiers have been especially interested in the standard grants, introduced in 1959, which authorities have a duty to pay for the specific provision of the basic amenities that the house lacks.
Every year they get about three-quarters of all standard grants made by the authorities, and by now well over a quarter of a million owner-occupiers have improved their own homes—put in baths, w.c.s, hot water systems, wash basins, food stores with the help of the standard grant. I congratulate them on their achievements.
I should like to say to those owner-occupiers who have not yet taken advantage of the standard grant scheme that they will find the effort of application repaid many times by the benefits and comfort that the extra amenities will provide. They should get in touch with their local authority, who will advise them how to set about getting a grant and they may also find that the authority is ready to lend them their own share of the cost of improvement.
The record of house improvement by private landlords is, frankly, disappointing. At this juncture I will apportion no specific blame because the situation is complicated, but I am sure that they could have done better. As I have implied, the landlords account for only about a quarter of the standard grants


being paid to private owners and their record in respect of discretionary grants for all round improvements to a higher standard is not that much better——

Mr. Graham Page: On this question of discretionary grants, too many local authorities are refusing them and many landlords feel that they would like to carry out the greater work because the small work standard grants are not good enough.

Mr. Mellish: There is no party argument on this. I propose to tell the House how our minds are working. I have said before and I repeat that some local authorities are inept. If they would show more energy in applying the existing legislation instead of talking about new legislation, I would be much obliged. Some local authorities have done a first-class job.
I was saying that the record of landlords over discretionary grants for all-round improvements to a higher standard is not that much better.
Except in 1965, they have been taking up about 40 per cent. or less of the discretionary grants paid to private owners. But, in all fairness, we must accept that the landlord is not as a rule a free agent, and I have known of cases where tenants have exercised their right to veto improvements that the landlord wanted to carry out. In some instances no doubt —where, for example, the loss of a needed bedroom would have been involved—the exercise of the veto was reasonable, but sometimes there is a reluctance to accept change, even change for the better.
I have talked to a great many tenants who have had their homes improved and, whatever may have been their apprehensions before, none of them has wanted to go back to the previous state of affairs with its consequent loss of comfort and a standard of everyday living that nobody in this country should accept as satisfactory for themselves in the second half of the twentieth century.
Some tenants are, I also know, reluctant to agree to rent increases, modest in themselves or in comparison with existing rents, which normally result from improvement. As the law now stands, a landlord may, as a rule, increase the rent by 12½ per cent. of his share of the cost of improvements. There is a great deal

of argument about whether that is a reasonable return in view of all the circumstances of a house with perhaps a limited life ahead of it. Obviously a fair number of landlords and tenants find that it is and get on with the improvements, but it is asking too much to expect private landlords to behave in every respect as if they were social workers.
In some circumstances, a rent increase reflecting 12½ per cent. of the owner's costs deters the landlord, and for this evidence I have no less an authority than the Milner Holland Report. So much depends indeed on individual circumstances that it is difficult to generalise, but I can and do ask landlords and tenants alike to examine carefully whether, with good will, it would be possible to improve the house to the benefit of both parties.
In view of my last remarks it is, perhaps, surprising that, in the far from easy year of 1966, figures for grant approvals remained remarkably buoyant, with one exception. Despite the undoubted fact that well over 1 million houses have been improved, there is evidence of a strong determination among our house owners and tenants to have improvements carried out. There was practically no difference in the number of discretionary grants approved—about 40,000—compared with 1965, and standard grants to private owners at a level of about 52,000, dropped by about 5,000 in 1966.
The really significant decline last year occurred, oddly enough, in the case of standard grants for the improvements of local authority-owned houses. The figures I have indicate that, in 1966, fewer than 16,000 council houses were included in standard grant approvals, compared with about 26,000 in 1965. This gap of 10,000 is the major contribution to the decrease in the total grant approvals last year which, at about 107,000, were about 16,000 fewer than in 1965.
There was emphatically no restriction upon the numbers for which authorities could obtain approval, but their improvement record did not match up to their really excellent achievements in new housebuilding. Yet it is estimated that local authorities own about half a million houses that lack one or more of the basic amenities, despite having improved already well over a quarter of a million.
My Department's regional offices have in fact engaged upon an intensive campaign to encourage more authorities to improve their houses, and results are beginning to show. It is indeed often unrealistic of an authority to expect owner-occupiers and, more particularly, private landlords to improve their property when the council does little or nothing to improve its own.
My hon. Friend, as a good constituency Member, is rightly very concerned with conditions in Salford, and so am I, but he will appreciate that I must also take a wider perspective and so perhaps produce overall a different impression from one with a more local basis. Whether, for example, Salford Council owns houses that could reasonably be improved up to the discretionary or standard grant level is a matter that it is in the best position to judge. Certainly last year it received approval for the improvement or conversion of 26 houses it owns with the aid of discretionary grant. Private owners in the same period received approval for over 200 standard grants, including 138 to landlords.
Subject to correction by my hon. Friend, I understand that there are still some 2,000 fit houses in Salford that lack one or more of the standard amenities. I know that the council has in the past done all it can to stimulate private owners to improve their houses, and about two years ago my hon. Friend himself opened a local publicity campaign to encourage improvements. I hope that later on this year it will he possible once more to include Salford within the Department's own publicity campaign to encourage improvements in the North-West.
So far, I have been dealing with what has been essentially the improvement of houses taken individually and where the initiative towards improvement has been with the landlord or owner-occupier. But local authorities have, as my hon. Friend knows, important powers to compel improvements in areas which they declare to be improvement areas. Owner-occupiers, rightly or wrongly, are exempt from these compulsory provisions which date from the Housing Act, 1964, but Salford Council, to its credit, has now declared three areas containing 665 improvable houses and work has already been completed on 33 of them.
My hon. Friend asked for a statement of the Government's thinking about the future. What I have been talking about so far is the past. We have been considering for some time what sort of legislation is required. I promise that I shall keep strictly within order. I am merely stating what is in the Government's mind. I am not suggesting that this will come about. These are improvements we are thinking of.
I accept my hon. Friend's argument; I believe that the 15 years' life which it is argued is necessary for these grants should be reduced. There is an argument as to whether it should be 10 or whether it should be 7 years. There is a case for considering whether we should talk about legislation for environmental improvement. We should talk about making it compulsory in some areas. Certainly we should talk about grant aid by local authorities to enable this to be done. Certainly we should talk about stepping up grants. I think that it will become abundantly clear that a case has been made for there being stronger powers to get repairs done.
My hon. Friend talked about public health inspectors. I assure him that in all this we shall carry them with us. We shall be advised by them to a large extent on what we should do.
I believe that local authorities, pending the legislation I have talked of, which must come in the future, should start getting out a plan of action now. Areas should be reviewed, and authorities should be determined that when aid is available they are ready to receive it. I hope that what I have said tonight will not result in some of the rather bad areas doing even less than they are doing now, because there is so much for them to do, not only in the private field, but also in their own field.
Other hon. Members are interested to know whether electrical wiring will be included. This will not be ignored. If we are to get the true value out of our housing, we should accept that money spent in the immediate future on the improvement of so much of our property can save the nation a great deal of money in the longer term. It is money wisely spent.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. He has done the House a service, and his whole record on


these questions does him great credit. I assure him that, when the review is completed and we are able to consider the problem as a whole, we shall not be unmindful of the views which he has expressed tonight.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I join the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) in urging that more effort and more money be spent quickly on saving houses rather than demolishing them. Too many local authorities think that it is spectacular to build tower blocks of flats, nice new-looking houses and so on, whereas they could with advantage put an effort into something a little less spectacular, the saving of old houses.
Terrace houses house more people than tower blocks. This has been proved in many clearance areas. When a terrace of houses is cleared, one is left with an extra family in three, I think it is, to house elsewhere than in the replacement blocks.
Every hon. Member has had experience of improvements required in houses in his constituency and of the difficulties which the ordinary person, be he owneroccupier or landlord, small landlord or

big landlord, has in filling in the forms, getting the approvals, and knowing what to do. At one time, the Government put out a good pamphlet on this subject. Will the hon. Gentleman look at it again and see whether it can be reissued in a fresh form, in nice plain terms, so that everyone will know what to do and how to do it?

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellishindicated assent.

Mr. Page: As the hon. Member for Salford, East said, many of these people are elderly and with small means. They are, perhaps, the people who block a series of improvements in a whole street. Although an improvement could be carried out in a long terrace by one builder on, as it were, a mass production basis for bathroom units, sink units, and so on, one or two elderly landlords without the means or without the knowledge of how to go about it——

The Question have been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock.